Oral
Answers to
Questions

Scotland

The Secretary of State was asked—

Connectivity: Scotland and the Rest of the UK

Felicity Buchan: What discussions he has had with Cabinet colleagues on improving connectivity between Scotland and the rest of the UK.

Alister Jack: Stirling has today submitted its bid to be the UK’s city of culture 2025. Winning the bid would bring investment and international attention to the town, and I am sure that every Scottish MP will join me in wishing Stirling the very best for the competition. As I am sure you are aware, Mr Speaker, today—2 February—is also Groundhog day. Of course, in Scotland, every day feels like Groundhog day with the SNP’s incessant calls for another independence referendum.
Turning to question No. 1, the Under-Secretary of State for Scotland, my hon. Friend the Member for Milton Keynes South (Iain Stewart), and I have regular discussions with Cabinet colleagues about improving cross-border connectivity. The UK Government are currently considering the recommendations from the Union connectivity review and a formal response will be published shortly.

Felicity Buchan: Does my right hon. Friend share my disappointment that the Scottish Government refused to engage with the Union connectivity review, and does he share my hope that these party political games will stop and that the Scottish Government will work with the UK Government to improve transport links for the people of Scotland, such as vital improvements to the A1 and the construction of the Borders railway to Carlisle?

Alister Jack: I do share the disappointment that the Scottish Government did not engage in the Union connectivity review. In fact, the Cabinet Secretary for transport, Michael Matheson, instructed his civil servants not to engage with Sir Peter Hendy, the author of the review. But the UK Government have invited the Scottish Government to work closely in partnership to consider the recommendations and identify solutions that work best for all people in the United Kingdom.

Pete Wishart: There is no doubt that the UK Government speak a lot about improving connectivity with Scotland, but what  is the Secretary of State specifically doing to improve connectivity between the UK Conservative Cabinet and what they refer to as the political lightweights of the Scottish Conservative party?

Alister Jack: I am not quite sure how that is linked to connectivity, but as the hon. Member knows, not only do I support the Prime Minister in the role that he is carrying out, but I support our leader in Scotland, my hon. Friend the Member for Moray (Douglas Ross).

Damien Moore: Rail links between England and Scotland are crucial in promoting regional interconnectivity not just to London, but to premier resorts such as mine of Southport. Would my right hon. Friend commit to meeting me so we can discuss putting the link back in through the Burscough curves to connect Southport better with Scotland?

Alister Jack: Yes, I will meet my hon. Friend. I know that he has six beautiful golf courses in his area, so connectivity would be wonderful for us Scots, because we do enjoy a game of golf.

Christine Jardine: With the pandemic leading to more and more people looking to holiday in the UK, what discussions—notwithstanding the comments about the refusal of the Scottish Government—has the Secretary of State endeavoured to have with the Scottish Government about harnessing that new-found demand and supporting important transport hubs such as Edinburgh airport and Haymarket station in my constituency to facilitate improved connectivity?

Alister Jack: As the hon. Lady will know, connectivity is important. It is not just about air; it is also about rail and road. We are very keen to improve connectivity because we realise that that leads to economic growth and improves people’s livelihoods. We are engaging with the Scottish Government in a spirit of good will with a view to improving connectivity for all parts of the United Kingdom.

Growth Deals

John Lamont: What progress his Department has made on implementing growth deals in Scotland.

Iain Stewart: The Moray full deal and the Falkirk heads of terms were signed in December. We now have nine deals in implementation and three in negotiation covering all of Scotland. The Government have committed over £1.5 billion for the deal programme in Scotland.

John Lamont: I am sure that the Minister is aware of the Scottish Government’s strategic transport review, and no doubt he will share my disappointment at the very lukewarm support for the extension of the Borders railway to Hawick, Newcastleton and on to Carlisle. Does he agree that this Government should show their full support for the project and tell us when the feasibility study for the Borders railway extension will be started?

Iain Stewart: I absolutely share my hon. Friend’s disappointment. When we signed the Borderlands growth deal, I was determined that the feasibility study for reopening the full Borders line should be in there. I am keen to see that work starting as soon as possible, and we will soon respond to the Union connectivity review, which also references that line. This is a classic example of where the Scottish Government should stop obsessing and spending their time, resources and money on yet more independence preparations and instead deliver on projects that really matter to the people of Scotland.

Deidre Brock: The Borderlands region will see £20 million less investment in its city region deal from the UK Government than from the Scottish Government. Why is that?

Iain Stewart: If the hon. Lady looks at the full package of investment that is going into the Borderlands deal, she will see that this Government are full square behind that area. It really is disappointing that it comes down to this petty point scoring when the whole point of the city region and growth deal is that all parts of government—local, Scottish and UK—work together on delivering the priorities that are determined by local people.

John Stevenson: Talking about the Borderlands growth initiative and the growth deal, does the Minister agree that it is extremely important and beneficial to the whole region, and that Carlisle has become the regional capital of parts not just of England, but of Scotland? Does he also agree that south Scotland recognises the importance of Carlisle’s economic performance to the whole region? Does he further agree that that helps to support the Union?

Iain Stewart: I absolutely agree that the Borderlands growth deal is unique in that it straddles the border. The economic footprint of the region is incredibly important. Last year I held a meeting in Carlisle with local authority leaders and other stakeholders to discuss not just the growth deal, but how it can be the starting point for a proper economic partnership that straddles the border and delivers for my hon. Friend and his neighbouring constituencies.

Strength of the Union

Stephen Kinnock: What recent steps his Department has taken to help strengthen the Union.

Alister Jack: This Government are committed to upholding and strengthening the United Kingdom. My Department works closely with our partners across Government and with Scottish stakeholders. This Government are delivering record investment in Scotland and are ensuring that the many benefits of the Union are shared across the United Kingdom.

Stephen Kinnock: The Leader of the House recently described the leader of the Scottish Conservatives as “a lightweight figure”. Does the Secretary of State believe that that comment helped to strengthen the Union?

Alister Jack: I have made my position very clear: I do not think that Douglas Ross—[Interruption.] Well, I made it very clear in the Scottish media, which hon. Members may not have noticed, but that is fair enough. He is the leader of the Scottish Conservatives and was put there by the membership, and we are a constitutionally devolved organisation. He is doing a very good job and holds Nicola Sturgeon to account, and he has my full backing.

Virginia Crosbie: On the Union, this Government are committed to delivering freeports across the United Kingdom, including at least one in Wales. Does my right hon. Friend agree that the creation of at least one freeport in Scotland will result in investment and thousands of jobs and demonstrates why our Union is so effective at delivering for our communities?

Alister Jack: I am pleased to say that, after a lot of initial opposition and resistance, we are close to agreeing two freeports with the Scottish Government. My hon. Friend is a great champion for Wales, and I hope that the Welsh Government will also accept a freeport.

Ian Murray: The Sue Gray report released on Monday was utterly damning about the Prime Minister’s conduct, yet the Secretary of State continues to back him against the wishes of his own Scottish Conservative leader, who I notice is not in the Chamber for Scottish questions. We now know that the Metropolitan police are investigating no fewer than 12 incidents in Downing Street, with more allegations every day. It is little wonder then that a recent poll found that the Prime Minister is as unpopular in Scotland as Alex Salmond. Does the Secretary of State think that the Prime Minister, in refusing to do the decent thing and resign, is good for the Union or helps those who want to break it up?

Alister Jack: The Prime Minister is resolute in opposing a second Scottish independence referendum and therefore very good for the Union.

Ian Murray: What is Groundhog day, Mr Speaker, is the Secretary of State’s defence of this broken Prime Minister.
Tomorrow, the Bank of England is projected to raise interest rates, and inflation is running at a 30-year high. There will be much anxiety in Scottish households that Ofgem will announce the raising of the energy price cap, leading to a massive hike in bills. Last night, my colleagues and I voted to give every single Scottish household support towards the cost of their spiralling energy bills. Under Labour’s fully costed plans, we would save every Scottish household £200 and save £600 for over 800,000 Scottish households hardest hit by the cost of living crisis. That is proper action on this crisis for those both on and off the grid, like many thousands in the Secretary of State’s constituency. Given that the SNP did not back these plans in the vote last night either, why are Scotland’s two Governments refusing to take any action whatsoever to help Scots with spiralling energy costs?

Alister Jack: The UK Government are taking action. The energy price cap is being maintained and will be renegotiated—that is ongoing work for the Secretary of State for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy. We  are providing a £140 rebate on energy bills for 2.2 million households with the lowest incomes, and we have the £300 winter fuel payment for pensioners.

Mhairi Black: The strength of any Union rests upon the confidence people have in those who are running things. I know that I disagree with the Minister’s political judgment, so let me appeal to his business judgment. Hypothetically, if he were handed evidence that the man running his company had been incompetent and dishonest, and was subject to a police investigation, bringing the entire company into disrepute, would he let him carry on in the role, or would he expect him to step back?

Alister Jack: As has been said many times at this Dispatch Box, the Prime Minister is very sorry for what happened—he has apologised. He has said that if he could have done things differently, with hindsight, he would have done. It is also the case that no one has said that he is the subject of a police investigation. The police are looking into the events that have been passed on to them by Sue Gray, and we will wait for the outcome of that inquiry.

Mhairi Black: I find it quite incredible. Many of the public believe that this Prime Minister has a long history of racism, homophobia and misogyny. He has lost numerous jobs due to his level of dishonesty. He has presided over 150,000 deaths and the loss of nearly £5 billion of public money to fraudsters. Eighty per cent. of people in Scotland want him to resign, and the leader of the Scottish Tories wants him to resign. Let me ask the Minister this: as Scotland’s only representative in Cabinet, what would it take for him to ask for the Prime Minister’s resignation?

Alister Jack: The Prime Minister is doing a fantastic job. He is focusing on the things that matter: delivering on the recovery from this pandemic, the vaccine programme that he backed early on, the booster programme that he led before Christmas, trade deals that will improve outcomes for Scottish food and drink, and many other things. He is a very good leader. The hon. Lady is absolutely prejudging the outcome of the police inquiry.

Robin Millar: Following the reference to confidence by the hon. Member for Paisley and Renfrewshire South (Mhairi Black), I welcome the publication of the levelling-up White Paper, and the Government’s commitment to decentralising the UK shared prosperity fund to local areas in Scotland and Wales. Does my right hon. Friend agree that that is an example of confidence in local decision-making, of real devolution and of good Union working?

Alister Jack: My hon. Friend is absolutely right—I know that he is a great champion of the Union. The levelling-up paper, which will be launched today, will contain a lot of initiatives and show that we are using structural funds to practise real devolution by giving that money directly to local authorities.

Scottish Parliament: Legislative Remit

Margaret Ferrier: What recent discussions he has had with the Scottish Government on the legislative remit of the Scottish Parliament.

Alister Jack: The UK Government remain focused on the issues that really matter to people in Scotland, including recovery from the pandemic. My Department continues to work closely with both the Scottish Government and UK Government Departments on the ongoing implementation of the Scotland Act 2016.

Margaret Ferrier: Yesterday, Holyrood backed a motion rejecting voter ID measures in the Elections Bill because they would disenfranchise Scottish voters. That is an indication of the strength of feeling for people across Scotland, and in my constituency, that the UK Government are not giving them due consideration through the legislative process. Can the Secretary of State confirm what plans the Government have to extend Holyrood’s legislative powers?

Alister Jack: We are respecting devolution with the Elections Bill: we are bringing in voter ID only for UK elections. We believe that stealing someone’s vote is stealing someone’s voice.

Coastal Communities

Jacob Young: What steps the Government are taking to support coastal communities in Scotland.

Cherilyn Mackrory: What steps the Government are taking to support coastal communities in Scotland.

Iain Stewart: Communities across Scotland have benefited and will continue to benefit from our focus on levelling up. Particularly for coastal communities we are investing a further £100 million over the next three years for transformative seafood projects that will help to rejuvenate our coastal communities.

Jacob Young: The petrochemical and oil and gas industries are vital to coastal communities across our United Kingdom, in Teesside and in Scotland. Will the Minister confirm that this Government are committed to supporting our petchem sector and further oil and gas exploration in the North sea, which will inevitably help us achieve net zero, not hinder it?

Iain Stewart: Yes, I can. The Government are committed to delivering a North sea transition deal, which will be a global exemplar of how a Government can work with the offshore oil and gas industry in partnership to achieve a managed energy transition. This deal between the UK Government and the oil and gas industry will support workers, businesses and the supply chain through this transition by harnessing the industry’s existing capabilities, infrastructure and private investment potential.

Cherilyn Mackrory: This Government’s multimillion-pound investment in the fishing industry will benefit coastal communities right across the UK, from Cornwall to Scotland. Does my hon. Friend agree that only by boosting coastal communities and spreading opportunity to every corner of our country can we succeed in our mission to improve the lives of everybody in our great nation?

Iain Stewart: Indeed I do. The Government have gone well beyond their manifesto commitment to replace European Union funding, by investing an additional £100 million over the next three years for these transformative seafood projects that will rejuvenate the industry and our coastal communities. Levelling up is about helping communities across the UK, and that means building back better, spreading opportunity, improving public services and helping to restore and celebrate pride in our coastal communities.

Alistair Carmichael: The world-leading European Marine Energy Centre in Stromness was developed as a consequence of access to EU Interreg funding, money to which we no longer have access. Does the Minister agree that the UK’s shared prosperity fund should be the source of replacement funding for organisations such as EMEC that no longer have access to Interreg funding? What is the Scotland Office doing to make that case within government?

Iain Stewart: I had the pleasure of visiting Stromness last summer, when I saw for myself the huge potential that Orkney has to lead the country in renewable energy. I continue to speak to the leader of Orkney Islands Council to explore all the ways in which we can help to fund these exciting projects.

Douglas Chapman: Many coastal communities, including in my constituency, benefit from improved coastal shipping. What actions has the Secretary of State taken to assist in introducing a direct ferry service from Scotland to critically important export markets in Europe?

Iain Stewart: I was pleased to reply to a debate that the hon. Gentleman and other colleagues spoke in a couple of weeks ago on exploring the potential for restoring the Rosyth to Zeebrugge link, which, for commercial reasons, ceased operating a few years ago. There are lots of potentials for reopening that. It is primarily a matter for the Scottish Government, but I am happy to work with him and his colleagues to explore all these opportunities.

Liz Twist: The ScotWind allocation announced last week has the opportunity to create thousands of jobs in Scotland. The reality is that in its time in office the Scottish National party has created lots of highly-skilled jobs, but they are not in Scotland—they are in China, Poland, Portugal and elsewhere. The Scottish Government failed to put in place sufficient demands for local procurement as part of awarding the contract; it is particularly disappointing for coastal communities, who can see offshore wind turbines being installed but cannot see the jobs. What discussion has the Minister had with the Scottish Government about ensuring that the supply chain for ScotWind creates jobs in Scotland and across the UK?

Iain Stewart: I agree with the basic point the hon. Lady is making. Referring back to the answer I gave the right hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr Carmichael), may I say that if we look at renewable energy as a whole, we see that there are enormous opportunities to develop that technology in Scotland, through our contracts for difference round, which is as  big as all the other rounds put together? Huge investment is going in, in offshore wind and in tidal, and I will continue to explore every avenue to make sure that this country is able to secure the lion’s share of that industrial capacity.

Levelling-up Fund: Benefits to Scotland

Suzanne Webb: What assessment he has made of the potential economic benefits to Scotland of the Levelling Up Fund.

Alister Jack: Eight projects in Scotland have received a share of more than £170 million from round 1 of the levelling-up fund. Those projects will create new jobs, boost training, grow productivity and deliver tremendous economic benefit to Scotland.

Suzanne Webb: With all the news on the levelling-up White Paper today, will my right hon. Friend update the House on progress towards the fund’s second round? There will be as many bidders in Scotland as there will be in my constituency, where we are keen to move forward with a bid to regenerate Lye.

Alister Jack: Unsuccessful applicants who have passed the gateway stage will be offered feedback to support future bids. They will also be encouraged to reapply. Round 2 of the levelling-up fund is due to open in spring this year, and more information will be shared in due course.

Alex Davies-Jones: I feel for the Secretary of State having to come to the Dispatch Box to defend his Government’s appalling record on spending for the devolved nations. Their broken promises on fully replacing EU funds look to set Wales back more than £1 billion over the next few years. Will he confirm exactly how the Government plan on plugging that gap? The shared prosperity fund will see all the devolved nations lose out on vital funding and is simply not good enough.

Alister Jack: To be absolutely clear, regarding funding to the devolved Administrations, the first comment I would make to the hon. Lady is that the settlement for Scotland this year of £41.6 billion is an increase of £4 billion and is the highest settlement that the Scottish Government have received since 1998, so since devolution began. Regarding the UK shared prosperity fund, the European regional development fund and the European social fund are absolutely being replaced with no reduction whatever, as per our manifesto commitment.

David Duguid: Will my right hon. Friend inform the House of what engagement he has had—or other UK Departments have had—with the Scottish Government and, in particular, with local authorities in Scotland to ensure that levelling up is truly a levelling-up exercise across the whole of the United Kingdom?

Alister Jack: As my hon. Friend knows from when he was in the Scotland Office with me, we have had a lot of engagement with Scottish local authorities. We have  been very clear that we will deliver the levelling-up money and work with those local authorities to practice real devolution.

Transport Links: Scotland and the North-east of England

Grahame Morris: What steps he is taking to improve transport links between Scotland and the north-east of England to promote economic growth.

Iain Stewart: The Union connectivity review recognised the importance of the A1 and recommended that the UK Government should seek to work with the Scottish Government to develop an assessment of the east coast road and rail corridor. The Government will respond to the UCR and publish that response in due course.

Grahame Morris: On the day that the levelling-up agenda has been published, will the Secretary of State tell the House what steps he is taking to devolve powers and finance to the northern regions, so that we  can strengthen ties with the Holyrood Government independently of Westminster, so increasing rail capacity, trade and opportunities for business?

Iain Stewart: I know how passionate the hon. Gentleman is about transport matters as I had the pleasure of serving with him on the Select Committee on Transport for a number of years. If he reads through the levelling-up White Paper, which came out today—I appreciate that it is quite a weighty tome, so he might not have had a chance to digest it all yet—he will see in that the measures to which he is referring. We can encourage better connectivity between the different economic centres of the UK. I would be absolutely delighted to see a strengthening of that corridor between Scotland and the north-east of England.

Defence Investment in Scotland

Ben Everitt: What discussions he has had with Cabinet colleagues on defence investment in Scotland.

Alister Jack: My office and I have regular discussions with the Ministry of Defence on all matters relating to defence in Scotland, including defence investment with industry and commerce in Scotland, which totalled almost £2 billion in 2020-21.

Ben Everitt: Scotland is home to the Royal Navy Submarine Service, including our essential independent nuclear deterrent, which protects the whole of the UK. As President Putin continues to escalate his military posture and the aggression on the Ukrainian border—let us be clear that it is President Putin escalating this and not the Russian people—does my right hon. Friend agree that our commitment to defence investment in Scotland, including in Trident, is important, indeed vital, to Scotland’s security as part of the UK and as part of NATO? [Interruption.]

Lindsay Hoyle: Order. I need to finish these questions. It is in good order that you hear your own Secretary of State.

Alister Jack: Mr Speaker, you will not be surprised to hear that I completely agree with my hon. Friend. The UK’s independent nuclear deterrent, which is Trident, based at the HM Naval Base Clyde, exists to deter the most extreme threats not only to the United Kingdom but to our NATO allies. Our nuclear deterrent is the ultimate assurance against current and future threats and remains essential for as long as the global security situation demands.

Lindsay Hoyle: I call Alyn Smith for the final question.

Rise in the Cost of Living

Alyn Smith: What discussions he has had with Cabinet colleagues on the potential effect of the rise in the cost of living on people in Scotland.

Iain Stewart: This Government have consistently said that the best way to support people’s living standards is through good work, better skills and higher wages. Our plan for jobs is working, the economy is growing and unemployment is low. The national living wage, the universal credit taper and allowance changes are putting more money in people’s pockets.

Alyn Smith: The UK energy market is demonstrably broken. Surely that is of concern to all of us in all parts of the House. I am particularly concerned about rural energy prices and disparities between urban and rural areas. Competition law and energy law are reserved to this place. Will the Minister support my call for an investigation into uncompetitive energy practices? If he will not, would he care to come to the city of Stirling and explain to the people of Stirling and Scotland how the UK energy market is working for them?

Iain Stewart: First, let me welcome the city of culture bid by the hon. Gentleman’s home city. I am always happy to visit Stirling—in fact, I believe that I am coming up to visit in the next couple of weeks. I am very happy to meet him to discuss the measures to which he refers, but energy prices are rising globally. That is a consequence of the coronavirus restrictions easing and demand coming back, together with other geopolitical factors, so I would put the points that he raises in that global context.

Speaker’s Statement

Lindsay Hoyle: Before we come to Prime Minister’s questions, I wish to make a statement about the House practices regarding accusing Members of lying or of deliberately misleading the House. I recognise that there are frustrations around the House’s practices.
First, let me say that there are means by which accusations of lying may be brought before the House, including by means of a substantive motion. The Scottish National party did so on its Opposition day in November. However, Members may not accuse each other of lying or of deliberately misleading the House unless such a substantive motion is under consideration. “Erskine May” is clear that it is
“to preserve the character of parliamentary debate”,
which I take to mean to stop it descending into fruitless cycles of accusation and counter-accusation.
It also says:
“Expressions when used in respect of other Members which are regarded with particular seriousness, generally leading to prompt intervention from the Chair and often a requirement on the Member to withdraw the words, include…charges of uttering a deliberate falsehood.”
It is important to stress context. Similar words said in different proceedings might attract a different response from the Chair depending on the subject being debated, tone and other considerations. In general, though, the Chair will not tolerate accusations of lying or of deliberately misleading the House. That is the long-standing practice of the House, as set out in “Erskine May” and followed by successive Speakers and Deputy Speakers.
Of course, long-standing practices may change—for example, if the House decided that it wanted a different approach, perhaps informed by a Procedure Committee inquiry—but it is not for me to change the practice unilaterally. Therefore, I ask Members to respect this approach. I know feelings run high on important issues we discuss, but there are plenty of ways of making strong feelings felt within the rules and without placing the Chair in the invidious position of having to order Members to withdraw or seeking their suspension.
Before we come to Prime Minister’s questions, I would like to point out that the British Sign Language interpretation of proceedings is available to watch on parliamentlive.tv.

Prime Minister

The Prime Minister was asked—

Engagements

Esther McVey: If he will list his official engagements for Wednesday 2 February.

Boris Johnson: This Sunday, Her Majesty the Queen will become the first British monarch to celebrate a platinum jubilee. While it is a moment of national celebration, it will be a day of mixed emotions for Her Majesty, as of course the day also marks 70 years since the death of her beloved father George VI. I know the whole House will want to join me in thanking Her Majesty for her tireless service. We look forward to celebrating her historic reign with a series of national events in June. This morning I had meetings with ministerial colleagues and others. In addition to my duties in this House, I shall have further such meetings later today.

Esther McVey: On Monday, the Secretary of State for Health and Social Care said mandatory vaccinations would be subject to a consultation. Can the Prime Minister make it unequivocally clear—no ifs, no buts, no qualifications—that mandatory vaccinations for NHS staff will be abandoned? Will he also make it clear that that is also true for care workers, many of whom have already lost their jobs? What support will the Government be giving to get those care workers back into the care sector, and will those who have lost their jobs get compensation?

Boris Johnson: I thank my right hon. Friend for her thoughtful work on this. I want to stress that vaccines remain our best line of defence, and I think  that NHS staff and all those who work in the care sector have a professional responsibility to get vaccinated. However, as my right hon. Friend the Health Secretary told the House on Monday, given the difference between omicron and delta, it is right—my right hon. Friend the Member for Tatton (Esther McVey) is right—that we revisit the balance of risks and opportunities. The Health Secretary has said we will launch a consultation and, subject to the responses and the will of this House, the Government will revoke the regulations.

Keir Starmer: Following your opening remarks, Mr Speaker, I want to say to Government Members that theirs is the party of Winston Churchill. Our parties stood together as we defeated fascism in Europe. Now their leader stands in the House of Commons parroting the conspiracy theories of violent fascists to try to score cheap political points. He knows exactly what he is doing. It is time to restore some dignity.
One of the most absurd claims made on behalf of Operation Save Big Dog is the Prime Minister and the Chancellor writing in The Sunday Times that they are the “tax-cutting Conservatives.” Why do these alleged tax cutters keep raising taxes on working people?

Boris Johnson: On the right hon. and learned Gentleman’s first point, I do not want to make heavy weather of this, but I am informed that in 2013 he apologised and took full responsibility for what had happened on his watch, and I think that was the right thing to do.
On what we are doing to tackle the cost of living and taxation, our covid recovery plan is vital in helping people with the cost of living: lifting up universal credit payments by cutting the tax that people effectively pay, lifting the living wage, and helping councils with another half a billion pounds for those who are facing particular hardship. What we are also doing, and this is absolutely vital, is increasing the number of high-wage, high-skill jobs in this country. There are 420,000 more on the payroll than there were before the pandemic began, because we have had the fastest exit from covid of any European economy, because we had the fastest vaccine and booster roll-out.

Keir Starmer: It is not just the national insurance rise. Thresholds for income tax frozen—a stealth tax on working people. The threshold for tuition fees frozen—a stealth tax on working people. Local authorities forced to increase council tax—a stealth tax on working people. You can be as stealthy as you like, but you cannot hide reality. We have the highest tax burden for 70 years in the middle of an inflation crisis. I ask the Prime Minister again: why do he and the Chancellor keep raising taxes on working people?

Boris Johnson: What we are doing is helping people with the cost of living, cutting taxes for those on universal credit, as I have said, and helping people with the cost of their fuel, with the cold weather payments and the warm home payment—doing all the things that this country would expect. We are lifting the living wage, which this party introduced. This Government have increased that by a record amount. Above all, the most important thing we are doing is helping people into work, with 500,000 people off welfare and into work under our way to work scheme. There are more  people in work now than before the pandemic began, and that is the record of this Government. Never forget that there has never been a Labour Government who left office with unemployment lower than when they came to power.

Keir Starmer: Lots of words, lots of bluster, but no answers. A word of warning, Prime Minister: that will not work with the police.
I will tell the Prime Minister why the Government are putting taxes up: low growth. In the decade of Tory Government before the pandemic, growth slumped. It was much, much weaker than under the last Labour Government. If the Tories matched our record on growth, we would have £30 billion more to spend on public services without having to raise a single tax. Surely even this Prime Minister does not need someone else to tell him that he and the Chancellor are having to raise taxes because the Tories failed to grow the economy over a decade.

Boris Johnson: No, I think everybody in this country can see that we have been through the biggest pandemic for 100 years and that we have looked after the people of this country to the tune of £400 billion, which we put into furlough and all the other schemes, with 11.7 million people protected. Everybody knows the cost of that. At the same time, despite all the difficulties we have faced, we have now got the fastest growth in the G7. That is absolutely true. We have youth unemployment at a record low. We have got three times as much tech investment coming into this country as France, and twice as much as Germany. [Interruption.] Yes, that is absolutely true. If we want to know about Labour economics, never forget that the last time they were in office, when they were finally booted out, they left a note saying, “There is no money left.” That is the way they run the country.

Hon. Members:: More!

Lindsay Hoyle: Order. Some people will not be getting more, because they will not be here to hear it.

Keir Starmer: The UK has suffered the worst economic crisis in the G7. The Prime Minister has more chance of persuading the public that he did not hold any parties than he has of persuading them that the economy is booming. High taxes are not just the result of low growth. Under this Government we have seen a pandemic of waste and fraud, from the Prime Minister’s yacht to Government contracts for mates of Ministers. They have treated taxpayers as an ATM for their mates and their lifestyles. Now we find that they have written off £8.7 billion on personal protective equipment and the Chancellor is writing off £4.3 billion in fraud. That is enough to cover the tax hike he is inflicting on working people. Why did this Government block the National Crime Agency from investigating all the billions they lost to fraud?

Boris Johnson: Of course we despise fraud and those who steal from the taxpayer, which is why we have already recovered £743 million in lost furlough money and £2.2 billion that was stolen in bounce back loans, and we will go on. But I have to tell you, Mr Speaker, that I am proud of what this Government and this  country did: securing record quantities of PPE in record time, and furloughing and looking after the entirety of British business and society in the way that we did.
Once again, Captain Hindsight comes to this House and attacks the Government for doing exactly what he urged us to do 18 months ago. Mr Speaker, it so happens that I have been rustling in my notes and I have found a letter dated 22 April 2020—which I will place for your convenience in the Library of the House—from the shadow Chancellor, the hon. Member for Leeds West (Rachel Reeves), to the Secretary of State for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities, my right hon. Friend the Member for Surrey Heath (Michael Gove), suggesting that we could secure PPE supplies from a theatrical costumier and get ventilators from a professional football agent. No wonder fraud was running at £21 billion a year under Labour. I am proud of what this Government did to secure PPE and I am proud of the way we protected this country.

Hon. Members:: More!

Lindsay Hoyle: Who wants to be the first to leave? Please put your hand up, because I am going to pick one of you.

Keir Starmer: The Prime Minister might want to sharpen how he answers questions under interview; he is going to need to in the next few weeks. Waste and low growth explain why we have high taxes, but they do not explain why it is always working people who are asked to pay more. Yesterday he ordered his troops not to support a windfall tax on oil and gas companies. As a result, the country is missing out on over £1 billion that we could have used to cut taxes on energy bills for working people. Today he is ordering his troops to vote for tax cuts for banks. As a result, the country is missing out on another £1 billion that we could have spent cutting taxes for working people. Why are the Chancellor and the Prime Minister protecting oil companies and bank profits while putting taxes up on working people?

Boris Johnson: Let’s just get to the heart of what this is all about. This is all about dealing with the consequences of the biggest pandemic that this country has seen, with an unprecedented economic crisis, in which the state had to come forward and look after the people of this country to the tune of £408 billion. Everybody can see the fiscal impacts of that. Shall I tell the House what this Government and this country are voting for, and what we are doing? We are investing now in 45,000 more NHS workers—more people in our NHS—this year than there were last year: 10,900 more nurses; about 5,000 more doctors; 9 million more scans and 100 community diagnostics hubs to help people to get the scans and the treatment that they need. And the incredible, lamentable thing is that the Opposition—the party of Nye Bevan—voted against those funds and that investment, and they would have made our covid recovery impossible.

Keir Starmer: For all the bluster, the truth is that the Conservative party is the party of high taxes because it is the party of low growth; it is the party of high taxes because it is the party of eye-watering waste.
We know that this Prime Minister has no respect for decency or honesty. I can take it when it is aimed at me, but I will not accept it when he gaslights the British  public, writing absurd articles about cutting taxes at a time when he is squeezing working people to the pips. Isn’t it the case that he and his Chancellor are the Tory Thelma and Louise, hand in hand as they drive the country off the cliff, and into the abyss of low growth and high tax? [Interruption.]

Lindsay Hoyle: Mr Gullis, I think you have been trolled for long enough and you do not want to be trolled any more. That is the last comment I have—otherwise I will ring your mother.

Boris Johnson: I think the right hon. and learned Gentleman is Dick Dastardly and Muttley, both of them pulling in different directions—we know they have different views.
We are getting on with the job, and of course I think it is absolutely extraordinary that the Opposition have done nothing to support our covid recovery plan and they voted against our plans to support the NHS. Just in the last few days, while the right hon. and learned Gentleman has been fixated on the issues that he is absolutely determined to escalate, we have opened freeports across the country, and we are getting 500,000 people off welfare into work with our Way to Work plan.
In just a few short minutes—I hope the right hon. and learned Gentleman will hang around, because he will hear him—my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Levelling Up will deliver the long-awaited levelling up White Paper, full of good stuff, including 55 education investment areas across our country. It is a wonderful economic and moral mission to level up and give opportunity across the whole country, and a fantastic vision for this country. The Opposition have nothing of the kind to offer the people of this country.
While we are getting on with coming out of covid, and we are the second fastest, or the fastest economic recovery in the G7—the fastest, the fastest—the right hon. and learned Gentleman would have kept us in lockdown. We are fixing the NHS and social care, when the Opposition voted against it, and they have no plan. We are building a coalition—[Interruption.] We are building a coalition—[Interruption.]

Lindsay Hoyle: Order. Prime Minister, I am this way, not that way—maybe Specsavers might be the answer to see where I am—but can I just say that Dame Caroline Dinenage is desperate to get the next question to you? I call Dame Caroline Dinenage.

Caroline Dinenage: Thank you very much, Mr Speaker. First, I would like to give my condolences to the right hon. and learned Member for Camberwell and Peckham (Ms Harman), and say how good it is to see her back in her place.
Sophie Fairall was just 10 years old when she died in September. Childhood cancer is often described as rare, yet cancer is the biggest killer of children under 14. Sophie’s GP failed to diagnose her cancer, and it was only when she went to A&E that they discovered the tumour in her little body that was 12 cm long. On World Cancer Day on Friday, I would like to ask the Prime Minister to please advocate for more and better training for general practice to identify cancer in children.

Boris Johnson: I thank my hon. Friend. I am very sorry to hear of Sophie’s case, and my thoughts are with her family and her friends. She is right that research is crucial in tackling childhood cancers. That is why we are investing in more research, but it is also vital that we do tests, diagnostic scans and screens early enough, and that is why it is also important that not only has National Institute for Health and Care Excellence updated its guidance on referring childhood cancers in February last year, but we are investing in 100 new diagnostic centres in community hubs.

Ian Blackford: I am sure that you, Mr Speaker, and the rest of the House will want to join me in celebrating and supporting World Cancer Day.
Mr Speaker, in relation to your earlier statement, I have a difficulty reconciling the Prime Minister’s version of events with other evidence and, as you know, I have a duty to reflect and represent the deep public anger with the Prime Minister. That said, I respect the absolute impartiality that you take in your role, and I want to set it on the record that I respect both you and the authority of the Chair.
This morning, the Telegraph newspaper revealed that the Prime Minister attended a party in his flat on 13 November 2020. The Prime Minister previously told the House that no party took place. The police are now investigating this party, and we face a very real prospect of a sitting Prime Minister being questioned under caution and being fined in office. If he is questioned, he must go, and if he is fined, he must resign. Mr Speaker, you will agree that the House should not be treated with contempt, so can the Prime Minister—[Interruption.] Here we go again. So can the Prime Minister update the House on his whereabouts on the evening of 13 November? Surely he does not need to wait for an investigation to tell us exactly where he was.

Boris Johnson: “Here we go again” says the right hon. Gentleman opposite, and I must say those were entirely my feelings: he asked exactly the same questions, as I recall, in the Chamber a few days ago. He knows that the process must go on, but I can tell him what has been going on in Downing Street in November and throughout: we have been delivering the fastest vaccine and booster roll-out anywhere in Europe; we have been getting people back into work; and we have been helping to bring the west together to defy what I think is completely unacceptable threats and intimidation from the Putin regime against Ukraine. That is what we have been doing.

Ian Blackford: That was a disgraceful response, and I have to say to the Prime Minister that he should read the room and see the expressions on some of his colleagues’ faces; he has lost it. We have now reached the ridiculous scenario of a Prime Minister who cannot even tell us where he was. He lives in a world where he thinks everything is owed to him, and he never pauses to think what he owes to the public. The Prime Minister is now a dangerous distraction at home and a running joke on the international stage. What does it tell the Prime Minister and the public that on the morning he has returned from Ukraine the Chair of the Select Committee on Defence has submitted a letter of no confidence in him?

Boris Johnson: It tells me that it is more vital than ever for the Government of this country to get on with the job and deliver our covid recovery plan, and that is what we are doing.

Virginia Crosbie: I would like to say diolch—thank you—to the Prime Minister for visiting my Ynys Môn constituency, where he saw at first hand the enormous beneficial impact the new nuclear plant Wylfa Newydd could have if built on Anglesey. Nuclear power must play a role if we are to meet our carbon and net-zero commitments, level up and combat rising energy prices. Does my right hon. Friend agree that the rapid deployment of nuclear technology must be a priority for this Government, and if so will my right hon. Friend commit to financing a nuclear plant at the Wylfa site in this Parliament?

Boris Johnson: It was a great joy to visit my hon. Friend’s constituency, where I believe she is known as “Atomic Kitten”—or so she informed me—and she outlined in great detail her plans for Wylfa. It is a fantastic vision and a fantastic site, and it remains a very interesting and attractive prospect for new nuclear power.

Colum Eastwood: I am not sure if the Prime Minister has noticed but while he has been partying working families in Northern Ireland have lost £1,000 from their universal credit, their national insurance has been put up by this Government and their energy bills are going through the roof. He is very fond of telling us that we are all in this together; isn’t it the truth that this Prime Minister has only ever been it for himself and his rich mates?

Boris Johnson: No, I am in it to serve my country and the entire United Kingdom, and I am also proud that we have had the biggest investment in Northern Ireland since devolution began and we have cut taxation on universal credit.

Chris Loder: South Western Railway has totally cut off Dorset, Somerset, most of Wiltshire and Devon from its direct rail services to London as well as slashing our service in half, most of which is totally unnecessary. Will my right hon. Friend support me and my neighbouring colleagues in getting direct services back to West Dorset and having a timetable that is fit for our region?

Boris Johnson: I thank my hon. Friend very much for his question; he knows whereof he speaks. He is an expert in the subject and has lobbied very effectively for his constituents and reflected their frustrations. I am told that the timetable is expected to return to December 2021 levels from Saturday 19 February.

Alex Sobel: I was out this weekend speaking to a constituent who has a cold and leaky house. She has already seen her bills go up from £100 to £170 a month. The Government have failed to insulate her house and failed to control her fuel bills. Bribing people with their own money is no plan. The Prime Minister has no plan to cut VAT and no plan to get the oil and gas industry to contribute. Another constituent, who voted for the  Prime Minister, went further and called him “despicable.” What use is a Prime Minister who has no plan for families struggling with the cost of living and who has lost the trust of the people of this country?

Boris Johnson: The hon. Member talks about cutting VAT. I wonder whether he voted for Brexit and our ability to cut VAT—perhaps he could indicate. We delivered that and celebrated its anniversary on Monday. I sympathise very much with his constituent and understand the pressures that people are facing on the costs of living, but what we have got to do is invest and protect them. We are putting in £12 billion-worth of support and financial help for families in hardship this year, which is absolutely vital after the pandemic. The most important thing is to have a jobs-led economic recovery. In case I failed to make myself clear before you wound me up, Mr Speaker, that is why we have the fastest economic growth in the G7.

James Grundy: The Greater Manchester mayoral clean air zone scheme—in effect, a congestion charge affecting all 500 square miles of Greater Manchester, including my constituents in Leigh—is a job-destroying tax on ordinary working people. We all want clean air, but the model proposed by Mayor Burnham is unworkable and economically devastating, with charges of £60 per day per lorry driver. Taxis, white van men and even buses will be caught by it. Will the PM intervene to prevent Mayor Burnham from inflicting this disastrous Labour scheme on Greater Manchester?

Boris Johnson: I know from my own experience how vital it is when trying to clean up air in a great city not to penalise business unjustly, and particularly small businesses. It has become clear that the scheme proposed by the Labour Mayor in Manchester is completely unworkable and will do more damage to businesses and residents in Manchester. We must find an alternative that does not punish local residents. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs will say more about that in the coming days.

Abena Oppong-Asare: If the Prime Minister receives a fixed penalty notice for attending a party or hosting a party during lockdown, will he inform the House, and will he resign?

Boris Johnson: Of course, I will comply with the law, but I have got to wait for the process to be concluded.

Ian Levy: Since I was elected, my fabulous constituency has really seen the green shoots of prosperity. Government support is bringing a green revolution to Blyth Valley. However, with such growth there has been increased congestion on our roads, and we are in desperate need of upgrades to road infrastructure. Will my right hon. Friend please meet me to discuss the urgent problem and help Blyth Valley out of its ever-increasing traffic jam?

Boris Johnson: My hon. Friend is the best champion that Blyth could possibly have. He does a quite amazing job. I thank him in particular for helping  to secure the Britishvolt gigafactory in Blyth—an absolutely amazing investment. Of course, growth and prosperity bring challenges when it comes to congestion on our roads, and we have to tackle that. We are working with the council on a bid for the Blyth relief road, and I will ensure that he gets a meeting with the Transport Secretary to discuss it further.

Rachael Maskell: The problem with a distracted Prime Minister is that he makes the wrong choices. While he has been living it up, many of my constituents are living on the breadline as food, energy and taxes shoot up. In York, rent prices are now the highest in the north and some of the highest in the country. York is now in the top 10 places in the country where there is a cost of living crisis, pushing my constituents further into poverty and debt. When will he stop protecting himself and start protecting my constituents?

Boris Johnson: One of the first things I did when I became Prime Minister was ensure that we looked after people on low incomes by increasing local housing allowance, by increasing the living wage—not once but twice, and by record amounts—and by doing what we have now done with universal credit. The most important thing about the UK economy right now is that we have a strong, jobs-led recovery, and that is what is going to drive up wages, drive up productivity and drive up growth. That is what this Government are delivering.

Desmond Swayne: Will the Prime Minister brief us on his visit to Ukraine?

Boris Johnson: I thank my right hon. Friend very much for his question. Very briefly, I can tell the House that the mission, which I hope everybody will support, was to stand shoulder to shoulder with Ukraine, for our country to show that we stand with the people of Ukraine, and to show that we stand for the sovereign and territorial integrity of Ukraine at a very difficult time. On the borders of Ukraine, as everybody knows, there are about 125,000 Russian troops massing. The situation is very perilous, and the job of the UK is to lead the west in bringing together the most important countries in creating a package of economic sanctions that will deter President Putin from what I believe would be a disastrous miscalculation, and also to strengthen our support for the Ukrainian people and, indeed, the Ukrainian army. We are doing that by supplying lethal but defensive weaponry, as well as training, to the Ukrainians, which is greatly appreciated. But I must say that the situation remains risky and it is vital that diplomacy finds a way forward.

Gareth Thomas: On a related issue, after the publication of the Russia report the Prime Minister claimed
“tackling illicit finance and driving dirty money and money launderers out of the UK is a priority.”
His warnings to Mr Putin of late would surely have carried more bite if he had used the 18 months since the publication of the Russia report to legislate for an economic crime Act to stop the flow of dirty money from Russia. Why has he not prioritised this issue of national security?

Boris Johnson: Contrary to some of the myths that are peddled, this Government have come down very hard on dirty money from Russia and everywhere else—that is why we brought in the unexplained wealth orders—and indeed China, which Opposition Members might like to consider. That is why we have sanctions on Russia following what it did in Crimea in 2014. We have Magnitsky sanctions on everybody involved in the poisoning of Alexei Navalny. To the hon. Gentleman’s point, we are bringing forward the economic crime Bill, and it will be voted on in the third Session of this Parliament.

Henry Smith: Two years ago this week, despite the best efforts of the Opposition, this Government delivered on the democratic decision to leave the European Union.  Despite there being a global pandemic in the two years since, more than 70 free trade agreements have been signed. However, as we recover, many more opportunities can be realised. Will the Prime Minister commit to appointing a Minister with responsibility for realising the Brexit freedoms and benefits that will boost all our constituencies?

Boris Johnson: Mr Speaker, you can hear from the chuntering opposite that they still want to take this thing back. They still want to cancel Brexit, but it is largely thanks to Brexit that we had the fastest vaccine roll-out in Europe, that we have been able to deliver our freeports and that we have been able to do 60 or 70 free trade deals around the world. I will not anticipate any decisions I may make about the Government, but I certainly think it would be a good idea to have a Minister driving that post-Brexit agenda.

Gavin Newlands: Let us just recap, Mr Speaker. First we were told that we must wait for the Sue Gray report; then we were told that we must wait for the police investigation to conclude. We had, “There was no party,” then we had, “If there was a party, I was not there,” and then we had, “If there was a party, all rules were followed.” But no one believes the Prime Minister. If any of the above were true, why did Allegra Stratton have to resign?

Boris Johnson: I explained that sad matter on the Floor of the House. No one wanted Allegra to resign, and I was very sad that she did.

Simon Jupp: My constituent Jinty Sheerin has launched a campaign for a dedicated menopause clinic in Devon. Women in East Devon currently face a 120-mile round trip to get to the nearest specialist menopause clinic. It is not good enough, is it? Will my right hon. Friend outline what steps the Government are taking to improve access to menopause services in Devon and the south-west?

Boris Johnson: I thank my hon. Friend for raising this very important campaign. We are committed to improving menopause care so that all women can have access to the support that they need to manage the symptoms. Menopause will be a priority in our women’s health strategy, and we are committed to establishing a UK-wide menopause taskforce.

Angela Eagle: If the Prime Minister needs a Metropolitan police inquiry to tell him whether he attended a party on 13 November in his own Downing Street flat, why should we believe that he is a fit and proper person to have his hand on the button of our independent nuclear deterrent?

Boris Johnson: I hesitate to remind the hon. Lady that she campaigned actively to install a Prime Minister who wanted to get rid of our nuclear deterrent altogether.

Mark Eastwood: My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister, the Government and our NHS have done an amazing job with the vaccine roll-out, making it a resounding success. Will he join me in thanking the wonderful NHS workers,   volunteers and pharmacists who have worked so hard to help to make that possible in Dewsbury, Mirfield, Kirkburton and Denby Dale?

Boris Johnson: I thank my hon. Friend, who does a fantastic job in representing his communities, and I thank all of them—everyone involved in the roll-out in Dewsbury, Mirfield, Kirkburton and Denby Dale. It was an extraordinary national effort. Anyone who has visited a vaccine centre will know that feeling of pride in what was happening; that feeling of energy in a collective effort to make our society and our country literally healthier day by day. I thank all those people from the bottom of my heart.

Lindsay Hoyle: That is the end of Prime Minister’s questions. Will those who wish to leave please do so quietly and quickly?

Speaker’s Statement

Jack Dromey

Lindsay Hoyle: We now come to tributes to Jack Dromey.
Jack made his mark long before he came into this House, in particular as a fearless, energetic trade unionist. I remember campaigning with him in the ’80s and ’90s to save the Royal Ordnance factory in Chorley. He was positive, down to earth, and determined to help working people—characteristics that remained with him throughout his career. I have to say, as somebody who knew Jack and worked with Jack: he was innovative; he was absolutely visionary. We sat down, upon a closure where thousands of jobs were going to go, and Jack said, “We’re in this together; we will stand shoulder to shoulder with the people whose jobs are at risk.” He said, “We’ve got to look beyond what kills people. We can do something different. Let us look for alternatives that save people’s lives.”
The expertise that was in Royal Ordnance Chorley was second to none. Of course we had to fight for the jobs in the first place. It became a choice between Glascoed and Chorley, and Jack said, “With the land values we know where British Aerospace will be.” In the end we came up with real alternatives. We had seen Lockerbie. We had seen the destruction and the loss of life, and in Chorley they designed a cargo that stopped the plane coming down. That was the vision of Jack, who said, “If we can’t save the jobs in making bombs, let us save jobs by finding an alternative to save lives.” So that is my personal experience of Jack Dromey. I knew him on other occasions, but I have to say: he was inspirational to me and he has been inspirational to many others in this House.
Since his election to this House in 2010, he proved to be an exemplary Member of Parliament. He was an assiduous and effective campaigner for his constituents. As a Front Bencher, he was trusted to lead for the party in particularly sensitive areas such as housing, policing, pensions, and, most recently, immigration. While he was a robust Front Bencher, he always demonstrated respect for his opponents and was well like and admired across the House. Nobody could fall out with Jack Dromey.
While we mourn a colleague, it is Jack’s family who will of course feel the loss most deeply. I know the whole House will join me in expressing our condolences to the Mother of the House, the right hon. and learned Member for Camberwell and Peckham (Ms Harman). Harriet, I know that all Members of this House will join me in saying to you and your family that we are so sorry for your loss, and it is a sad loss for this House.
I will now take brief points of order to allow for tributes to an esteemed colleague.

Boris Johnson: On a point of order, Mr Speaker. On 7 January, this House suffered the loss of the hon. Member for Birmingham, Erdington, Jack Dromey, and it is right that we should come together now in tribute to his memory. Let me offer my condolences, on behalf of the whole Government, to the Mother of the House, the right hon. and learned Member for Camberwell and Peckham (Ms Harman), and her family.
Although Jack and I may have come from different political traditions, I knew him as a man of great warmth and energy and compassion. I can tell the House that one day—a very hot day—Jack was driving in Greece when he saw a family of British tourists, footsore, bedraggled and sunburned, with the children on the verge of mutiny against their father: an experience I understand. He stopped the car and invited them all in, even though there was barely any room. I will always be grateful for his kindness, because that father was me, and he drove us quite a long way.
Jack had a profound commitment to helping all those around him, and those he served, and he commanded the utmost respect across the House. He will be remembered as one of the great trade unionists of our time—a veteran of the Grunwick picket lines, which he attended with his future wife, where they campaigned alongside the mainly Asian female workforce at the Grunwick film processing laboratory. Having married someone who would go on to become, in his words,
“the outstanding parliamentary feminist of her generation”,
Jack became, again in his words, Mr Harriet Harman née Dromey.
Jack was rightly proud of the achievements of the right hon. and learned Member for Camberwell and Peckham, but we should remember today his own contribution to this House during his 11 years as the Member for Birmingham, Erdington. He was a fantastic local campaigner who always had the next cause, the next campaign, the next issue to solve. I was struck by the moving tribute from his son Joe, who described how Jack was always furiously scribbling his ideas and plans in big letters on lined paper, getting through so much that when Ocado totted up their sales of that particular paper one year, they ranked Jack as their No. 1 customer across the whole of the United Kingdom.
Jack combined that irrepressible work ethic with a pragmatism and spirit of co-operation, which you have just described so well, Mr Speaker. He would work with anyone if it was in the interests of his constituents. As Andy Street, the Conservative Mayor of the West Midlands, remarked:
“He was a great collaborator always able to put party differences aside for the greater good… Birmingham has lost a dedicated servant... And we have all lost a generous, inclusive friend who set a fine example.”
While Jack once said that he was born on the left and would die on the left, I can say that he will be remembered with affection and admiration by people on the right and in the middle, as well as on the left. Our country is all the better for everything he gave in the service of others.

Keir Starmer: On a point or order, Mr Speaker. Since the sudden passing of our friend Jack, tributes from every walk of life have captured the essence of the man we knew and loved: larger than life, bursting with enthusiasm and ideas, and tireless in the pursuit of justice and fairness. Jack channelled all those attributes into representing the people of Erdington, into a lifetime of campaigning for working people, and into his greatest love, his family.
The loss felt on the Labour Benches is great. The loss to public life is greater still. But the greatest loss is felt by another of our own, my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Camberwell and Peckham  (Ms Harman). She and Jack were married the best part of 40 years ago. The annual general meeting of the Fulham Legal Advice Centre may not sound like the place to find romance, but that is where Jack and Harriet met, with Jack addressing the meeting, and Harriet inspired to blaze a new trail—one that eventually led her to the place she holds today, as an icon of the Labour party and of this Parliament.
When we hear Harriet talk about Jack, one word comes through time and again: “encouraged”. It was Jack who encouraged her to join Brent Law Centre. It was Jack who encouraged her to stand as an MP—the first pregnant by-election candidate. It was Jack who encouraged her to run to be the Labour party deputy leader. When Harriet became the first woman in 18 years to answer at Prime Minister’s questions, Jack sat in the visitors’ gallery with their children, beaming down with love and admiration. I am so glad to see Jack’s family here today, beaming down with the same love, affection and pride.
The sense that Jack was always on your side is felt across this party and across the trade union movement. You can always get a measure of someone by how they treat their staff or those who rely on them. One of Jack’s former employees has said that whenever they met new people, he would always say that she was the real brains of the operation and he was merely the bag-carrier. His humility and sense of humour were legendary.
Shortly after Harriet’s book came out, a staffer had a copy of it on their desk. Jack roared with laughter as he saw a photo of himself in his 20s, barely recognisable with the prodigious thick beard. “Good grief!” he exclaimed, “What was Harriet thinking?” “What? Putting the picture in the book?” replied the staffer. “No,” Jack said, “marrying me!”
I was fortunate enough to work alongside Jack when I was a new MP in 2015. Our friendship endured, and as I gave a speech in Birmingham just a few weeks ago, it was Jack’s face that I saw in the audience, beaming up at me. He texted me the next day saying how much he had enjoyed it. That was two days before he died, which brings home the shock of his sudden, tragic passing.
Jack cut his teeth as a campaigner who spoke truth to power. He picked battles on behalf of working people, then he won them. It would be impossible to list all those victories today. He led the first equal pay strike after the Equal Pay Act 1970 was brought into law; he supported Asian women to unionise against a hostile management at Grunwick; and, even this year, he campaigned for a public inquiry on behalf of covid bereaved families.
Jack was a doughty campaigner, dubbed “Jack of all disputes”, who was feared by his opponents, but he was also deeply respected and liked across the political divide. Each and every one of us is richer for having known him. We will all miss him terribly.
The funeral service on Monday was beautiful and moving. Today, our hearts go out to Harriet, Joe, Amy, Harry and Jack’s grandchildren. The loss and grief they will be feeling cannot be measured or properly described. It cannot be wished away or pushed down and ignored, because great grief is the price we pay for having had love. We all love Jack and, even though he may no longer be with us here, that love will always live on.

Peter Bottomley: May I say through you, Mr Speaker, and through the right hon. and learned Member for Camberwell and Peckham (Ms Harman) the mother of Amy, Joe and Harry, that the personal was very well covered in St Margaret’s two days ago? The political has been covered by the press and by Gordon Brown when he spoke at the service. I would like to contribute a parliamentary word and a trade union one.
The parliamentary one is that Jack showed what can be achieved if, by chance, you cannot have ministerial office during your time here. For those who come here thinking that being a Minister is the only thing that matters, they are wrong.
Secondly, I believe that if we could have more people who have had serious, continued trade union experience coming into this House, the House of Commons would be better for it, and I hope that that will not just be on one side of the House.

Ian Blackford: Over recent months, we have been forced to gather here far too often to remember colleagues who, very sadly and often suddenly, have been lost to this Parliament.
Jack Dromey is another Member of this House who has gone well before his time. On behalf of myself and my colleagues in the Scottish National party, I want to extend our deepest sympathies to all who knew and loved Jack. My thoughts, of course, are most especially with the Mother of the House; she has lost a constant companion at her side. She and the family bear the biggest burden of the loss of someone who was at the very centre of all their lives.
I would also like to extend sympathy to Jack’s beloved party, because we all know he was a Labour man through and through. I will also remember Jack as one of the feistiest campaigners in this place—a man rooted in trade union politics, rooted in the rights of workers, and a man who never lost an ounce of that spirit when he entered this Parliament. That fighting spirit extended to causes and campaigns far and wide, and I know that it extended to strikes and protests in Scotland, too. He was a true friend of Scottish workers and a champion of workers everywhere.
Jack was true to the cause and that is probably why he was so good at working cross-party and winning support and friendship across this place. My friend, the former Member of this place, Neil Gray, worked very closely with him on the Pension Schemes Act 2021 and he still speaks so fondly about Jack’s determination and his passion to make sure that that Bill was amended. He would often bound up the stairs to my office to seek my and my party’s support for various campaigns not just for him, but more often, for Harriet.
I will finish by sharing one story that I read about Jack, which I thought was both very telling and very touching. Apparently, a few years ago, a great admirer of the Mother of the House from the feminist movement approached Jack and said, “I always feel a bit nervous around Harriet—I am so in awe of her,” only for Jack to reply, “Me too. Even after all these years.” Today, we can assure Jack and his family that many of us were in awe of him, too. We deeply admired the way he conducted himself and the way he carried himself every day of his  life. He left his gentle mark on so many and he will be greatly missed. May he now rest in peace. God bless you, Jack.

Guy Opperman: Thank you for allowing me, exceptionally, to speak from the Front Bench on a very difficult occasion. What an honour, my dear Jack, and what a sadness it is to speak of the friend I got to know from the other side of the Aisle.
For three years, Jack was the shadow Pensions Minister and we became close. We would meet, talk and plan, and sometimes agree to disagree, but always with equanimity. Politics is adversarial and heated. The media encourage us—in fact, demand of us—to be aggressive and mean-spirited. Jack did not play that game. Others have spoken of his decades of work for the union movement, of his being a loving father and a devoted husband, and even of his management of truculent children on a deserted Greek road. I want to talk about two things. First, he is the best example I know in 11 years in the House of Commons of cross-party working. Many used to joke about how often I would exchange texts with Jack. We worked together and we got results. I would give him briefings on all future legislation, ongoing inquiries and difficult issues. That requires a lot of trust, and such trust can go wrong, as we all know. But he never used confidences unfairly or for quick political gain. I believe that we and this House work better for such a thing. During the process of the Pension Schemes Bill, we spoke or sent texts to each other more than 110 times—I counted them up. Without his help, the Bill, in particular, the measures on collective defined contributions, and the work with the Transport and General Workers Union, would not have happened as they did.
Secondly, I want to talk about Jack’s kindness and generosity of spirit. My children died in childbirth in June 2020 and I want to share with the House what he said when I tried to return to work, as we had two Bills to do that autumn. He saw that I was struggling at this Dispatch Box on 29 June. He sent a text to me afterwards and I wanted to share it with the House:
“Guy, I know we both have a job to do, but I was not comfortable today. I feel for you, and your wife, my friend. We will build work around you. My thoughts are with you. Please take your time. Best wishes, Jack”.
Jack Dromey was, in my opinion, a man made in the Teddy Roosevelt spirit: kind but combative; passionate but polite; and always in the arena, always striving for the benefit of others. There can be no finer compliment than saying that “The Man in the Arena” quote, which is my favourite, applies utterly and totally to Jack. Farewell my friend, it was an honour to know you.

Margaret Hodge: My husband Henry introduced me to Jack and Harriet when we got together in the ‘70s. We were, as ever, at some conference, Jack was, as ever, preoccupied with fixing some vote, and I was in total awe of Harriet and Jack. Fortunately, I got the seal of approval and we have been friends now for nearly 50 years. Those who knew him well know what a generous, kind, funny, enthusiastic, interested and interesting, loyal, unselfish and consistent friend Jack was.
Jack’s life was filled by his total passion for social justice, his tribal loyalty to the Labour party, his consummate determination to be at the heart of any and every campaign that might help to make the world a better place, and his relentless optimism that he would always win. Jack’s life achievements were so many, his campaigns so eclectic, that it is impossible to capture everything in a short tribute. I want to focus on his work before he became an MP. From the Grunwick strike to fighting to maintain the Rosyth and Plymouth dockyards, from corralling the first ever equal pay strike at Trico to observing the Luanda mercenary trials in Angola, seeking to stop the execution of three British mercenaries, wherever there was injustice, Jack was there. I remember Jack in the ‘70s leading the occupation of Centre Point in London, when London was littered with empty new office buildings while the homeless slept on the streets; in the '80s, when he bravely led the trade unions to oppose Militant in Liverpool; in the ‘90s, when he served on Labour’s national executive committee and worked to modernise the Labour party and make us fit to govern; and in the noughties, when he organised the cleaners’ strike here in Parliament when they were earning as little as £5 an hour.
Finally, two personal memories. In all our fantastic adventurous holidays together, whenever we arrived at a new destination, Jack’s first question was always, “What’s the wi-fi code?” He was not looking for a local restaurant. He was not finding a place for us to have a drink. His first priority was always, “Is everything okay in Erdington?” On new year’s eve, we would always have a sing-song, me playing the piano and everybody else singing. Each year, Jack, with his great singing voice, would give us a solo performance, that harked back to his Irish roots, of “Danny Boy”, with the women joining in to help him with the high note at the end. We always brought in the new year with a bang.
Our grief at his loss is an expression of our love for the man. Jack will continue to live on in all our todays and tomorrows as we take forward the campaigns he worked on and enjoy the successes he achieved. Thank you, Jack, for everything, and for just being you.

Andrew Mitchell: It is a privilege and an honour to speak today about Jack, who I am proud to call my friend and colleague in this place. He was my parliamentary neighbour, as his constituency inside Birmingham city ran alongside the royal town of Sutton Coldfield, and there were many mutual issues affecting our constituents, on which we worked seamlessly, constructively and enjoyably together.
Jack’s arrival in Birmingham was somewhat unexpected, not least because those of us keenly watching the outcome of the selection contest had been advised that this was an all-women shortlist, but we quickly established a rapport. The thing I learnt early on about Jack was that he was a brilliant negotiator. Faced with a brick wall, his instinct was not to pound his way through it, but to skilfully manoeuvre around it wherever possible. And he was ineffably charming and patient. He had a considerable knack locally of bringing people of different persuasions to common positions. He did it at times of great anxiety in the automotive industry in the west midlands with Caroline Spelman, our former colleague from Meriden, with West Midlands Mayor Andy Street and, most recently, with me working on Afghans coming to Birmingham from Kabul.
All of which leads me, finally, to a story about Jack’s negotiating powers and—forgive me for name dropping, Mr Speaker—about his relationship with the Marquis of Salisbury, a former colleague in this place, Conservative Minister and Member for South Dorset, Robert Cranbourne. When his lordship was a Defence Minister, he held regular meetings with the unions in Whitehall. These meetings sometimes ran for four hours and meaningful results were slow in being achieved, but during particularly drawn-out moments the Marquis, as he is now, would catch the eye of the then senior trade union negotiator, as he then was, Jack Dromey. After one such meeting, his lordship rang up Jack to suggest that it would perhaps be better if they sorted out the business beforehand, possibly over lunch, and, to Robert’s relief, Jack willingly agreed. “Where should we go?” asked Jack, to which the Marquis replied, “I wonder if you might like to come to White’s, my club in St. James’s,” to which Jack replied, “Ah, I’ve always wanted to go there.”
And so affairs of state and the Ministry of Defence were congenially sorted out by these two distinguished public servants. On the first occasion, as various chiselled-featured members of the British establishment walked through the club’s hallowed portals, Jack drank orange juice, but on the final occasion, after a particularly successful negotiation had been concluded, glasses of vintage port were consumed. As he stepped out on to the street, Jack thanked his lordship for his kind hospitality, and as he left said over his shoulder, “By the way, please don’t tell Harriet where we’ve been. And especially do not mention the vintage port!” [Laughter.] For the avoidance of doubt, Mr Speaker, I can of course confirm that this was a workplace event. [Laughter.]
As we remember an adopted son of Birmingham taken from us far, far too soon, let us remember the words of Harry, Jack and Harriet’s son, who with both sadness and pride spoke of the quality, but not alas the quantity, of the years they all had together.

Layla Moran: To the tributes already paid, I add the profound sympathies of both myself and all the Liberal Democrats who sit on these Benches. As a relatively new Member of the Commons, I confess that I did not know Jack that well, but what I did know I really, really liked.
I first met him in a mindfulness meditation class, which he, the right hon. and learned Member for Camberwell and Peckham (Ms Harman) and I attended with other MPs as we sought to find some calm in the storm of the 2017 to 2019 Parliament. I dare say that it was, at times, hilariously awkward. I remember Jack taking those classes with great humour. He oozed wisdom and kindness, and I think it was that shared experience that meant that, when we caught each other’s eye while passing each other in the Lobby, he would ask how I was, and he really meant it. Since his passing, I have learned that that kind man, whom I liked so much, had a similar effect on pretty much everyone he met. The tributes today are proof of how respected he was across the political spectrum. While a trade union man through and through, he was a pragmatist. He would work with anyone who could deliver his aims and shared his values.
Part of Jack’s appeal and great strength was that he was so obviously driven by his values and by a deep desire to help people. Quite simply, Jack Dromey was  one of the good guys. I think it says it all that he worked to the last. In that final debate on Afghanistan, he urged Parliament and the Government to take a more compassionate approach to those in the world who need us the most and said:
“Our country has a proud history of providing a safe haven to those fleeing persecution.”
He also spoke of our country’s most fundamental values
“of decency, honesty and fairness.”—[Official Report, 6 January 2022; Vol. 706, c. 129WH.]
Jack embodied those values.
To the right hon. and learned Member for Camberwell and Peckham, to their children, Harry, Joe and Amy, and to the whole family, there are no words, but I hope that from today’s tributes they can take some comfort in knowing the impact that Jack had and how he affected not just this House but the whole country.

Greg Clark: Jack made a big impression as soon as he was elected to this place in 2010 and was appointed to the Front Bench straight away. I was a rookie Minister and he was my shadow. It was a forbidding prospect because Jack came with such a reputation, as the Leader of the Opposition attested, as one of the big trade union leaders of his day, used to rallying mass meetings and getting his own way. It was with a little trepidation that I committed myself to going head-to-head with him for many weeks in Committee for what became the Localism Act 2011.
However, I was quickly to discover that Jack’s success was based, as evidenced today, on his charm, persuasion and forensic mind. He had a tremendous impact as we spent those many weeks together. In fact, so persuasive was Jack’s oratory and work in Committee that, much to the Whip’s consternation, he incited my first rebellion—as the Minister taking the Bill through Committee! [Laughter.] His remarks were so persuasive that I could find no argument against his amendment and declared that I would accept it, and we did, despite the fact, as former and current Ministers will know, that my speaking notes had “RESIST” in bold type. It is objective to say that Jack’s powers were simply, literally, irresistible.
My right hon. Friend the Member for Sutton Coldfield (Mr Mitchell) attested to Jack’s brilliant work in forging alliances irrespective of party. He mentioned the work that Jack did with our former right hon. Friend Dame Caroline Spelman, his constituency neighbour. They stood up in particular for manufacturing industry interests that created jobs in their constituencies and across the west midlands. That joint work was vital during turbulent times; when investment decisions were being considered, showing the unity of purpose of the local MPs projected nationally was very important.
Jack’s lifetime of knowledge, experience and passion for manufacturing industry made him an authority, carrying universal respect and the confidence of employers creating jobs. I was therefore honoured when Jack asked me, after Caroline stepped down at the last election, to continue that partnership with him. We met regularly with businesses and trade union leaders, not only in his beloved automotive sector, but in aerospace, chemicals, life sciences and food and drink. He is greatly missed by the leaders of those sectors.
Ministers from the Front Bench and my hon. Friend the Member for Hexham (Guy Opperman), as well as the Prime Minister, have attested to what an effective  advocate Jack was. He achieved what he did through kindness, enthusiasm, optimism and encouragement, but not without drawing on his trade union skills of organisation and tenacity. His achievements and how he won them made him respected across this House and across the country. He represents, as does the right hon. and learned Member for Camberwell and Peckham (Ms Harman), the very best of this House.

John Cryer: I will start by saying how great it is to see the Mother of the House, our inspiration, my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Camberwell and Peckham (Ms Harman), in the Chamber today, and her family. I knew Jack for years and years; I could probably speak for the next two hours about all the campaigns we worked on together, first as Transport and General Workers Union officers and then as MPs elected to Parliament at the same time.
There are a couple of campaigns that I will talk about particularly. The first, which many people in this Chamber will remember, was when Kraft took over Cadbury. Seven factories were taken over by Kraft, and Jack led the trade union campaign to protect their jobs—a very successful campaign, by the way. As part of that campaign, which I got involved in at Jack’s behest, we went to see the then Business Secretary, Peter Mandelson.
Before the meeting—this is just the sort of thing Jack would do—he discovered that Peter’s favourite chocolate was fruit and nut, so we got a cardboard box roughly the size of Westminster Abbey and filled it with Cadburys Dairy Milk Fruit & Nut before having a very constructive and successful meeting—I wonder why it was so constructive and successful? I must add that I remember saying to Jack before we went in, “Jack, Peter’s quite a lean sort of bloke. He obviously looks after himself. Do you think some of that chocolate might be surplus to requirement?” So by the time we got into the meeting the box was a bit lighter than had originally been the case.
The second campaign, which again was successful—even more successful, actually—was one that is largely forgotten now, involving S&A Foods. I ask hon. Members to bear in mind the name, because that will be important. S&A Foods was a big agricultural combine, largely producing strawberries, about 30% of the British strawberry market. Its workers were largely migrants and very badly exploited. It was a big workforce: I am talking 4,000 to 5,000 people working on the land in the west country picking strawberries, but just for three months a year, and being very badly treated.
Jack got involved in that campaign and, as he always did, threw everything at it. He worked his heart out on getting recognition, getting better terms and conditions and improving the lives of those thousands of people working on the land. That became quite a big deal at the time, and I remember Jack and I going to a meeting of Transport and General Workers Union members and officers afterwards.
Jack always had about 50 things going on in his brain at the same time—that was just the way he was—so as he rose to speak to the members, he was not really concentrating on his words. He opened his speech by saying, “Right, what I want to talk to you about now is S&M”, and I could see the faces of all these pretty  traditional—for those who knew the T&G—trade unionists faces dropping, going, “What!”. I was nudging Jack, saying, “Jack, it’s S&A, not S&M—that’s something entirely different.” I think.
As I said at the beginning, I could talk at great length about all the campaigns I did together with Jack. He was always an inspiration. He always led from the front, and he was very largely successful. He was one of the most successful trade union officers industrially in the past 50 or 60 years, or something like that, and often in difficult conditions. Jack had one overriding aim, and that was to improve the conditions and the lives of the people he and we represented. In that, I think he was successful, and in that, I think he left the world better than he found it.

Tracey Crouch: I do not remember the first time I met Jack, but that is probably because when I did, I walked away feeling like I had known him forever. He was gentle, sweet and naturally mindful—by which I mean that, unlike some colleagues, his eyes were not darting around to see if there was someone more interesting or important to speak to. If you had his attention, you held his attention.
To me, he was always so kind. He never defined me by my politics or my football team, but as a person. He always asked about my family and, whenever we had a conversation about my son Freddie, he would regale me with tales and the occasional picture of his grandchildren, accompanied by a beaming smile and sparkling eyes. His adoration of his family was clear to see.
Jack was exceptionally polite. Like a child who can spot an ice cream shop from a mile away, Jack it seems could spot a colleague who needed a confidence boost. He always had a word of praise for anyone downhearted about their performance in this place—a cheeky, “Well done”, a smile as he sat down, a kind tribute in his own comments. He was quite simply a lovely colleague.
I am sure he was prone to arguing with the sat-nav or left his shoes in a perilously dangerous place, but from the outside he looked like a pretty perfect husband, one who loyally and lovingly supported his wife at a time when Parliament was even more challenging for women that it is today. I hope that most of us think that we have a Jack at home, but I still reckon that he could have made a fortune giving consultancy on how to be the long-suffering but supportive male other half. This House has lost someone special, but my heart does not break for us; it breaks for the right hon. and learned Member for Camberwell and Peckham (Ms Harman) and his three children and grandchildren. As I sit down, I remember his warmth and gentleness. I send my love to them today.

Jim Shannon: It is a pleasure to add a contribution from my party. I apologise that my right hon. Friend the Member for Lagan Valley (Sir Jeffrey M. Donaldson) was unable to be here. He lost his brother last week and the funeral was yesterday, so I will make some comments on behalf of my party.
I came to this House in 2010. I had some relationships and experience in the council and the Assembly, but I knew that this was a bigger place, with more MPs and more people. I looked about, to know who to watch to learn the ropes and the trade. In my opinion, Jack Dromey was one of the people to look at, because,  whenever he spoke, had I been going to leave the Chamber, I would sit down. I wanted to hear what he was going to say. That was the sort of gentleman he was.
My last engagement with Jack Dromey was in Westminster Hall—that will be a surprise to people that I was in Westminster Hall, but I was. On that day, Jack Dromey was there as a shadow spokesperson to speak on the Afghan citizens resettlement scheme. We had a good debate and a good response from the Minister. Afterwards, as I always do, and others do, I thanked Jack Dromey for his significant contribution on a subject that he loved and wanted to add to, and he thanked me in his turn. The Backbench Business Committee had given us the privilege of a debate, but Jack Dromey thanked me for at least requesting it. It is hard to believe that that was on 6 January. Less than 18 hours later, I got a message from the girl in my office to tell me that Jack had passed away. I said, “You’ve got it wrong. I saw him yesterday. That just cannot be right.” Unfortunately, it was right.
Jack Dromey was a man of strong principles, with a devotion to service. His legacy is of a fighting spirit and relentless optimism, and it is one to which each of us on these Benches can and should aspire. Jack, I feel, was a master of all campaigns. If he was campaigning for something, be on his side, because that was the winning side. All of us, both on this side of the House and across the Floor, are the poorer for his absence.
My thoughts and prayers are with his family—with Harriet, our friend and colleague, the right hon. and learned Member for Camberwell and Peckham (Ms Harman), and the children—as they face the coming days without this wonderful man, so suddenly taken from us all, but they will have fantastic memories.
I am sure that you will agree, Mr Speaker, that the message that must go to his family today is that they are not alone with their grief and that this House and this great family of MPs and staff are united behind them.

Yvette Cooper: No one could have failed to be moved on Monday by the incredible tributes to Jack from his three children, Harry, Joe and Amy. All of us know the pride that Jack had in his family, but we felt it, too, on Monday, and also their pride in him.
Jack had that wonderful way of making you feel that everything was going to be alright. It did not matter what scrapes he had got you into, it was all going to be okay. I was lucky to work with Jack on so many campaigns. He was just so formidable on so many different things. If we despaired, he always had some good new idea to pick us up, and then he would be off running with it and we would be racing to catch him up. If we got too highfalutin, he would remind us what they were saying in the Dog and Duck. If we faltered, as all of us do from time to time, he would be there to tell us that we were brilliant and not to lose faith.
Jack was a fabulous feminist. We all saw the support that he gave to Harriet over so many decades. We heard from Amy, Jack’s daughter, on Monday that true feminism at home meant also making sure that Harriet never had to learn how to use a washing machine. I have to say that I was so proud when I heard that. I have known Harriet and Jack since I was in my 20s, and have avoided, wherever possible, using the washing machine at home, and have resolutely refused to learn to cook. I  must tell Amy that she got me into a bit of trouble on Monday, because Ed, who was sitting next to me, turned and glowered at me and said, “So, it was all Jack and Harriet’s fault.” I just said that I had learned from the very best.
Jack did not just support Harriet; he supported so many of us as women parliamentarians and women in the trade union movement. One woman trade unionist told me that, many years ago, Jack had encouraged her when she was a young mum to put herself forward in the trade union movement. That would have been pioneering enough at that time, but what he also did when he spied her husband standing at the back holding their child was to find him and tell him what an incredibly important and noble job he was doing in supporting her, too.
Jack also had that amazing special ability to bring people together at a time when politics can feel so divided. We heard how, when he died, he had tributes from the five biggest manufacturing groups in Britain and also the five biggest trade unions, which is a unique reflection of the industrial alliance that he had worked so hard to bring together. In the Labour movement, he not only straddled the left-right divide, but had strong roots in both our liberal and our communitarian traditions. Unusually, his politics and values throughout his life bound together that fierce support for equality, feminism, anti-racism and individual rights, with those deep roots in community, solidarity, family and faith in the dignity of work. He brought that all together. We need more Jacks.
I was with Jack the afternoon before he died. Every conversation that I had with him that day was just pure Jack. I doubted something that I had done, but he said that it was brilliant—I am sure it was not. We talked about Christmas, and he said how wonderful his grandchildren were. He then went on to speak in a debate in Parliament and make a passionate and patriotic case for the Government to do the right thing by vulnerable Afghan refugees. As a last act in Parliament, it was entirely fitting and a demonstration of his persistent decency and solidarity.
Most of all, Jack was an optimist. He loved life and he loved people. He made lives better because he believed that things could be better. So many of us have learned so much from Jack that we will make sure that that legacy carries on.

Liam Byrne: Jack Dromey was my mentor, my teacher, my political partner and my friend for almost a decade and a half in Birmingham. Like for many of us here today he was like a father to me; indeed, he was at school with my dad, at Cardinal Vaughan in west London, part of that extraordinary generation of second-generation Irish kids: sharp, chippy, pushing, determined to make a contribution to social justice.
It didn’t always start smoothly: my godfather, Spud Murphy, then a prefect at Cardinal Vaughan, used to talk to me fondly about having to give Jack a clip round the ear for smoking behind the bike sheds at school. But Jack was not a rebel without a cause: his cause was social justice, and he fought for it his entire life. His glorious life was one long crusade for the underdog; he fought for them whenever and wherever he found them. His campaigns in Birmingham are innumerable: he fought for more police numbers, he fought for covid  families, he fought for the food bank, he fought for Erdington High Street, he fought for manufacturing jobs, he fought for the factory at GKN—and this was all just in the last week of his life.
As you will know, Mr Speaker, Jack brought a particular approach to all his campaigns. It generally started with a very, very long list of bullet points, and Jack would start off by saying, “Just three points”, and we would tease him as he got to, “And seventeenthly”, but he brought to every single one of his campaigns what he used to fondly say was a certain “je ne sais quoi”. He made sure that at the core of every single one of his campaigns were the stories, because we have all been educated in the legend of Joe and Josephine Soap in the Dog and Duck in Erdington. He also brought to all his campaigns not just the art of coalition building but incredible calm, along with persistence. He used to very proudly say that his nickname in the union was “Never snap, never flap Jack”, and he reminded me of that very often as I was losing my rag over the last year and a half.
On the last day of Jack’s life we were working together on a book about the future of our great region, the heart of Britain, and as ever he brought to that an extraordinary optimism. He put the green industrial revolution at the core of what he wrote, and this is what he wrote:
“I am passionate in my belief that change is possible. However, as my experience as an MP for a constituency with high levels of inequality and poverty, it is crucial that any change is not just ambitious in the objective of dealing with climate change, but radical in creating opportunity for all. There is much to do and little time to achieve it before it’s too late.”
I say to the Mother of the House, my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Camberwell and Peckham (Ms Harman), and the family watching today, like you we have all struggled with the shock of loss. I myself have found comfort in the words not of an Irish poet but of a Greek, who wrote centuries ago:
“Even in our sleep, pain…falls drop by drop upon the heart, until, in our own despair, against our will, comes wisdom through the awful grace of God.”
The wisdom we draw from Jack Dromey’s life is very simple: we should all try to be more Jack. Our community, our country, and this House of Commons will be a damn sight better for that.

Jess Phillips: It is a pleasure to follow my colleague and friend from Birmingham, my right hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Hodge Hill (Liam Byrne), and what I want to say is going to be all about Birmingham. Jack did not sound like me. He was not groomed as I was, just as a child loves their parents no matter what, to love Birmingham, because it was given to me at birth. Jack did not have that, and he loved it way more than me. He would talk about Birmingham in terms that made it unrecognisable to me. I love the place, don’t get me wrong, but Castle Vale, while I love it, is not a place of great beauty. The Aston expressway is not a thing to behold, yet when Jack talked about Birmingham and Brummies, he felt so much as if he was from the tradition of the place of my birth. I think much of that is to do with his Irish ancestry, which so many of us in Birmingham have, but there could be no greater advocate for the city of Birmingham.
I know that many people want to speak, so I will touch slightly not only on Jack being an honorary Brummie—not even “honorary”, Jack Dromey was a Brummie through and through, without question—but on him being an honorary sister. The first time I ever spoke in this building, it was Jack Dromey who sat next to me. He put his arms around me afterwards and said, “I am so proud of you. I am so proud to see you here”—mainly because I was a girl from Birmingham and he loved Birmingham. The last time I ever sat in this place with him was just a week before he died, and we had just been put on the same team together, the shadow Home Affairs team. He said to me, as I sat down from asking a question of the Home Secretary, “It is so delightful to be completely outsmarted and outflanked by brilliant women.” That came as no surprise to me. I say to my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Camberwell and Peckham (Ms Harman), all her family and her children that Birmingham will truly miss Jack Dromey. All the love of a sometimes not very beautiful place is with you and your family.

Shabana Mahmood: Jack and I were both elected in the 2010 general election, and he was my constituency neighbour, but because he was selected relatively late to be our candidate in Birmingham, Erdington, we did not get to meet until we were both newly elected Birmingham Members of Parliament.
I remember in those early weeks lugging around a massive rucksack that basically had a mobile office in it, having no idea of the lobbying required to get ahead in the race for an office in this place. Jack came over to me—we had only spoken a couple of times at this point—and told me that he had secured a whole suite of offices in Portcullis House. On hearing that, I was immediately insanely jealous, but he went on to ask whether I wanted to share them with him. Of course, I went from insane jealousy to all but falling at the man’s feet with gratitude. He laughed and said he simply had to rescue me from my flipping bag, because it was practically the same size as me, and he could bear it no longer. That set the tone for our friendship—lots of gentle mickey-taking and loads of laughter.
I was always struck by how ready Jack was—we have heard so much about this today—with his praise and encouragement. It is something that his children spoke so movingly about at his funeral. Jack would always stop you, text you or drop you a note to say he had seen you make a speech or give a TV interview—whatever it might be—and that it was “first-class, absolutely brilliant, the best of Labour.” He never hedged his bets when it came to praise, did Jack, but he really believed in generous and uncomplicated affirmation not just of his loved ones, but of his friends and colleagues. The sincerity meant it always mattered to the person on the receiving end. It always made a difference.
Not every conversation with Jack was quick. He would stop you to talk about the famous “three or four quick things,” but I soon clocked that the correct number was calculated by taking the number of things Jack said he wanted to talk about, multiplying it by two and adding three. It seemed to work every time, and Jack always got a promise out of you, or maybe more than one promise, to attend a meeting, to look into something or to join one of his campaigns.
In one of our more recent conversations, he told me he wanted to talk about campaigning—four quick things were actually 11—and at the end I laughed and said, “Jack, mate, how is it that your four quick things have now led to 10 absolutely urgent, immediate priorities for my to-do list?” I soon regretted admitting those 10 priorities, because he then laughed wholeheartedly and said, “That’s the target from now on, Shabana: 10 things to be added to the to-do list.”
It is difficult to believe that a man so full of energy, positivity and generosity is gone. He leaves an immense legacy, not just as a titan of the labour movement but as a thoroughly decent, good man. Jack Dromey was first class, he was absolutely brilliant and he was the best of Labour.

Clive Efford: It goes without saying that the loss of Jack has shocked us all, and our hearts go out to Harriet and her family.
Jack was, as we have heard, respected across this House. He was an extremely generous person, often giving praise to his colleagues and associates whether they wanted it or not. I am privileged to chair the Tribune group of Labour MPs, of which Jack was an enthusiastic member. On many occasions, he would stop me somewhere en route as he rushed off to a meeting to tell me what a wonderful job I was doing of organising the Tribune group. On one occasion, when he was particularly effusive with his praise, I stopped him and said, “Jack, not even my mother would believe what you are saying.” He just carried on undeterred, thinking his message had not got across.
No matter how much he was over the top with his praise, he always left you feeling better after speaking to him. He felt the Tribune group had a lot to offer the party, and we met regularly to discuss the issues of the day. Jack would always keep the discussion well grounded and to the point. When we were losing sight of the bigger picture, he would intervene, “Just a few quick points, may I, chair?” He would then set out his opinion, always carefully thought through, with an anecdote here and a shaggy-dog story there—sometimes long and sometimes short, depending on the audience—and always with a twinkle in his eye. He would then bring us back to the point, with the apocryphal question, “What do Joe and Josephine Soap in the Dog and Duck think?” I heard about Joe and Josephine so many times that I feel I have been to the Dog and Duck. I actually got to the point where I googled it, and there is no Dog and Duck in Birmingham. We will miss him in those discussions and, above all, we will miss his dynamism and enthusiasm, which spurred us on; and I will miss his encouragement in keeping the Tribune group going.
We are both proud long-term members of the Transport and General Workers Union. He had been a high-ranking official, becoming deputy general secretary, and I was a lowly lay member of the transport section. We got to know each other when he came to this place, and we found we had a number of mutual acquaintances from the trade union, mainly because my region—the London region—was very influential in the union, and my branch, the cab section, was very influential in London.
Many of the people in my branch were on the broad left of the trade union, and Jack back then was a member of the broad left. There is no questioning Jack’s left-wing credentials. He built a long reputation  on the campaigns he fought and won as a trade union official. His determination to stand up for social justice was legendary even then, over 30 years ago, and he continued this struggle in his parliamentary career.
The negotiating skills he honed as a trade union leader enabled him to forge alliances across the divide in this place and to get things done for the people of his adopted Erdington. In my opinion, there will always be a bit of London that is Erdington, and that is Jack’s legacy for them. Jack’s indefatigable campaigning on behalf of the trade union and labour movements touched six decades. He changed the lives of countless people who will never know what he did for them.
One last thing we had in common is that 16 months ago I became a granddad. Nothing made Jack smile more than when we talked about the unalloyed joy of being a granddad. It is probably those chats that I will remember most when I think of Jack. So Jack, if out there, in a parallel universe, there is a Dog and Duck with Joe and Josephine in it, perhaps sometime in the future—not too soon—we will sit down with a pint and find out finally what they actually think. It was an honour and a delight to have known you.

Gary Sambrook: Thank you for squeezing me in, Mr Speaker.
I had known Jack for about 12 years, since he was first selected to stand in Birmingham, Erdington, and I am still a councillor in Kingstanding in his constituency. I have to confess that Jack and I did not always see eye to eye on every issue. I think the first time we met was on Aylesbury Crescent in Kingstanding, where we did not exactly meet on equal terms; we actually had a few coarse words. But whenever I or anyone had a debate with Jack, including in public meetings, we would always get the wink and nod after the little dig or political point, and I respected that enormously.
I last saw Jack at Penny Holbrook’s funeral, about a week and a half before he passed away. My heart goes out to everybody in the Erdington constituency Labour party, because they have had a terrible year, with so many people sadly passing away. Within five minutes, Jack and I were talking about MG Rover. He said, “I remember one particular day”, and I looked at him and said, “Of course you were involved with MG Rover. Why wouldn’t you have been?” We had a long conversation about it. I think he was talking about the situation in 2000 or 2001, when he said, “We went into a meeting with the Phoenix Four”—they thought that the success and the campaign had been won—“I have no shame in telling you that I cried in that room that day”. That is because the issue meant so much to him, because of the thousands of workers at the site and what the company meant to the community.
Then, of course, Jack went on to talk about his grandchildren, as he was playing with another small child at the funeral. He was having a good laugh about the height jokes that his son Joe made to him all the time. We left on good terms that day.
Jack had a very good sense of humour. We have a WhatsApp group for all Birmingham MPs, who will remember that just a few weeks ago—Jack being Jack—he tried to organise something that could have politically shown up me and my right hon. Friend the Member for Sutton Coldfield (Mr Mitchell) on a police debate. My  right hon. Friend and I have never been so quiet in a WhatsApp group before: because Jack had got the wrong WhatsApp group! He had accidentally got the all-party one, rather than the Labour one. The argument on tactics started between the other MPs, when all of a sudden someone noticed that my right hon. Friend and I were in the group. I saw Jack the next day and he came up to me with a big, beaming smile. I will not repeat what he said because there were a lot of expletives, although it was something along the lines of, “I’m a bit of an idiot, aren’t I?”, but he smiled and joked about it.
Jack was a good man who fought passionately for the city that is my home. Many of us will him terribly.

Lindsay Hoyle: I am very concerned about leaving enough time for the Mother of the House, who is going to sum up at the end. Can we please be brief because there is a lot of business ahead and the family are waiting?

Karin Smyth: I rise as vice-chair of the all-party parliamentary group on Ireland and the Irish in Britain. My hon. Friend the Member for St Helens North (Conor McGinn), who chairs the group, apologises that he is not here; he is at a funeral today.
Jack was a valued and prominent member of the Ireland and the Irish in Britain group—the community from which he came. Shortly after my arrival here in 2015, he welcomed me not only as a new MP, but as a fellow child of Ireland’s 33rd and, frankly, finest county: county London. “Where are your parents from?”, he asked. “Mine are from Cork and Tipperary”, he proudly did say. His father was a labourer, his mother a nurse—the people who came here to rebuild England. Their work and experience underpinned and drove his politics and dedication to public service. In the trade union movement, he always saw the parallels between his own parents’ struggles and those of newer migrant communities, and he built links with those new migrant communities—most recently with the Polish community at an event at the London Irish Centre.
Jack’s support for the Gaelic Athletic Association in Birmingham and across Britain was a significant part of his involvement with the community. It is no surprise, given that his grandfather, Jack Doherty, was a hurler who played for Tipperary in several All-Ireland finals in the early 20th century. It was a very proud moment for him to take part in the St Patrick’s day parade in Birmingham—which had not taken place for decades because of the pub bombings—alongside the Erin Go Bragh GAA Club, based in his Erdington constituency. Just last year, engaging in the cross-party work of which we have heard so much today, he worked with colleagues on both sides of the House to save Páirc na hÉireann, the home of Gaelic games in Britain ensuring that a generation of children in the west midlands can continue to enjoy Irish culture and sport.
Jack’s son Joe described at Jack’s funeral how he had beamed when visiting the construction centre named after him, imagining his own dad—newly arrived on these shores—knowing what would become of his son. Jack was so proud, as many of us were, when there was an event here in Parliament to honour him and other sons and daughters of that generation of Irish construction workers who had helped to build Britain. He was one of  a relatively small band of us MPs who are as proud of the people we came from as we are of the people we represent now, being both British and Irish. Jack also had a strong sense of justice. In the week when we mark the 50th anniversary of Bloody Sunday, his involvement in the pursuit of democratic, peaceful politics on the island of Ireland and good relations between our two countries was recognised by the Irish Government and by the Irish ambassador to the UK, Adrian O’Neill, who attended Jack’s funeral on Monday.
Being Irish was very important to Jack, and Jack was very important to Ireland and the Irish community in Britain. We will miss him. Ar dheis Dé go raibh a anam.

Khalid Mahmood: I first met Jack during the Longbridge dispute, when we, as Members of Parliament, were getting together to do our best to save that huge industry in Birmingham. Unfortunately we all know what the result of that was, but Jack always tried his best. I met him next when we had an issue with the HP Sauce company, which was pulling out of Birmingham and going to Denmark. I joined him when he said, “I am going to lead this campaign on behalf of the trade unions.” We had a couple of conversations and meetings and decided to organise a rally. We all walked through Aston for about a mile and a half to the factory, and spoke to the workers there. Eventually, as a result of Jack’s tenacity, we managed to secure better terms and conditions for the people who had been expecting to lose their jobs.
That is what Jack was about. He was a great man, and from that day onwards I realised that he was someone whom I wanted to know better and become closer to. So when my friend and his predecessor as the Member of Parliament for Birmingham Erdington, Siôn Simon, decided that he was going to move on, one of the first things I did was speak to Jack. On Friday evenings Jack was usually with his family, but one Friday evening Siôn and I met at a curry house where he and I and a couple of other friends tended to go to transact business, and I said, “Siôn, if you are leaving, perhaps we should speak to Jack Dromey, because he is a great guy, and we want someone like him who understands a community like Erdington which contains industries and a huge number of working people.”
When I called Jack he was in Ireland, listening to a recital being given by his daughter Amy. He texted me saying, “Can we speak tomorrow? I am at this recital, and I can’t talk to you now.” He contacted me the next day. The local Labour party then went through the necessary procedure, and selected him because it believed that he was the right person.
Jack was always at the forefront. Recently when a young lad, Dea-John Reid, was stabbed to death, Jack and I, along with our hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Edgbaston (Preet Kaur Gill), turned up and spoke to representatives of the black churches and the community. I hope that our action has prevented any further uprisings.
Jack was always there. He was always there for the community, and he was always there for me. When I became frustrated by local authority issues, the following day he would either call me or come and see me in Portcullis House and try to explain how I could make progress.
Let me end by sending my condolences to the Mother of the House, to Joe and to Amy, and by changing an adage around: behind every strong woman there is a strong man. May Jack rest in peace.

Angela Eagle: I want to pay a very short tribute,
because we have heard so much from both sides of the House that encompasses so accurately Jack’s many qualities. When he came to the House, he was fully formed as a political activist and one of the greatest trade unionists of his generation. He had the abilities to ensure that social justice was advanced. He never gave up, and he was optimistic. He loved and was proud of his wife—he was a feminist before many of us knew what that word meant—and was unashamed to be Mr Harriet Harman. He was a very rare, very talented, very kind and gentle man who was the best of the Labour and trade union movement. We will all miss him terribly.
Condolences, obviously, to the Mother of the House and to his fantastic children, who are in the Gallery. As someone who was fortunate to benefit from Labour party romance, I always looked up to Harriet and Jack’s law centre romance as something that I should follow.

Barry Sheerman: Jack Dromey has been in my life for a very long time. I was a candidate in Taunton—an eminently winnable seat for Labour—and because I was from the Transport and General Workers Union as well as a Co-operative, this young man suddenly pitched up for a day to help me, so we have known each other since 1974. He was really suspicious of me at first—there I was, a university academic standing as the Labour candidate—but he found out that I had served an apprenticeship at the ICI paint factory in Slough and we became great friends. Ever since that day, we worked together—we started the all-party parliamentary manufacturing group—and did wonderful campaigns together. He was not just a colleague or a comrade; he was a mate.
When you are serious about politics, you come here on a Thursday morning, to make the Leader of the House’s life a misery, and Jack was a member of that club. I still see him there. Jack was so warm and generous, and he had a way of worming things out of you. He had a big family, and I have four children and 12 grandchildren. We used to compete, and I know more about his family than you could ever believe because he would tell me. He would ask of my family, “How are you getting on? What stage are you at?” but I bored him because everything he had to say was more exciting than what we were doing.
The fact about Jack was his passion. As Chair of the Education and Skills Committee and then the Children, Schools and Families Committee, I have always been passionate about children’s issues, and he was passionate about families and children. He once said to me, “Barry, if you are a Member of Parliament and you care about the job, you cannot bear to think of a child in your constituency going to bed tonight with nothing in their tummy.” He was compassionate, he was funny and he was wise. I was with him and John Smith one night when we raised a glass of champagne and said, “Nothing but the best is good enough for the workers.” Jack, we love you, miss you and will work to be even better than we are because of you.

Rushanara Ali: I first met Jack when I was a young researcher working for the then MP Oona King and he was at the Transport and General Workers Union. She had secured a private Member’s Bill to ensure that cowboy contractors did not do shoddy work in council homes or treat their staff badly, but she was double-booked for a meeting with senior officials—that was not uncommon for her—and I was terrified, because she said that I had to sit in and work out what the Bill should contain. She said, “Don’t worry—Jack Dromey will be there. Let him do the talking,” and of course what happened was that Jack mobilised the business community and trade unions and got the Government to support our Bill. Despite its not getting through, the Government supported the measures, and Oona, Jack and others managed to change many thousands of people’s lives by improving the work done in council homes. That legacy continues up and down the country, including in my constituency. I often look at those blocks of flats and think, “If Jack and others hadn’t done that work, people’s lives would have been much worse.”
When I arrived in Parliament, Jack was always there, as others have said, providing constant encouragement. Even when I was going through very tumultuous times in my constituency and in managing the politics there, he would have very encouraging words, constantly giving me confidence and constantly supporting me whenever I needed it.
In his last speech in Westminster Hall, which I had the privilege of chairing, he said that
“the bravery of our service personnel and Government officials who stayed on the ground in Kabul, at great personal risk during Operation Pitting, represented the very best of Britain.”—[Official Report, 6 January 2022; Vol. 706, c. 129WH.]
He told the Government how important it was to act to protect Afghani people for what they did.
Jack represented the best of British—the best of our country—and he is greatly missed by all of us. He was family to me, and I know to all of us across this House and in his constituency. My thoughts are with the Mother of the House and the family. Jack will be greatly missed, but he will always live in our memories and in what we go on to do. That is his legacy.

Helen Hayes: Jack Dromey had a fierce heart for justice, and combined with his inherent kindness and decency, he was able to achieve so much for so many, and we have heard much about that today.
First, I want to pay tribute to Jack on behalf of my constituents. When Jack was not in Birmingham, Erdington, his home was in Dulwich and West Norwood. He and the Mother of the House are familiar figures in our community, valued and faithful supporters of our local independent businesses, kind and generous neighbours, and friends to so many. A few weeks before Christmas, I spotted from my car the lovely scene of a pair of grandparents taking a grandchild for a walk, before realising some moments later that this was Jack and the Mother of the House. Since Jack’s untimely death, so many of my constituents have expressed their shock and sorrow, and have told me how much they will miss Jack.
Secondly, and briefly, I want to pay tribute to Jack as a tireless champion of early years education, and maintained nursery schools in particular. Jack understood the  transformative impact that high-quality early years education can have on reducing inequality and disadvantage, and he understood that every child, no matter their background, deserved the best. As the recently appointed shadow Minister for children and early years, I have spent the last few weeks meeting people who work with small children, and so many have mentioned Jack’s powerful advocacy for their profession and how much he will be missed.
Jack was a friend to all of us, especially to colleagues with less experience, to whom he offered support, a listening ear and, always, wise counsel. Jack is irreplaceable, most of all to his family and to the Mother of the House, for whom there is so much love in my constituency of Dulwich and West Norwood and across the wider Lambeth and Southwark Labour family.

Hilary Benn: I think we all thought that Jack would always be here because the whole of his life was devoted to being there for others—the workers he represented, the constituents he was so proud to serve and the family he loved. I simply want to say that it was such a privilege to be at his funeral on Monday. As we have heard, his children spoke so beautifully about their father, with so much love and joy, and I am absolutely certain that he was looking down on them from on high, bursting with pride. Amid the laughter and the smiles, and the tears and the stories, there was a moment in the service when a shaft of sunlight came through the window and illuminated the nave, and I like to think that it was illuminating also the essential truth about Jack’s life. Although it was cut short, he used every single day that he had in trying to build a better world—oh, what an example for the rest of us to follow!

Lindsay Hoyle: I am now going to bring in the Mother of the House, the right hon. and learned Member for Camberwell and Peckham (Ms Harman). May I just   say, Harriet, that this shows how the House can be at its best, and that it is at its best because of the love for you, Jack and your family?

Harriet Harman: Thank you, Mr Speaker. On behalf of myself and my family, I warmly thank all hon. Members who have spoken today. I say to everyone from all the around the country who has sent us cards, emails, texts, tweets, and who have posted on Facebook, that the memories they have shared with us, and the respect that they have shown for Jack, have given so much comfort to me and his beloved family as we face the total shock of his sudden death from heart failure just three weeks ago.
Jack hated inequality and oppression, and his life’s work was a steadfast focus on supporting those who were fighting against it. His roots in the Irish working-class immigrant community, his solidarity with black and Asian people fighting against inequality, and his respect for middle-class people who, though not suffering hardship themselves, wanted to work to end it for others, made him the polar opposite of the culture wars and the living embodiment of the coalition that is the Labour party. He spoke up for people and they heard him, and that made them stronger, whether they were those he worked with or those he had never met.
Much has rightly been said about Jack’s support for me in my work. It was phenomenal and it was unswerving. But it was not just because I was his wife; it was a matter of principle. Jack believed that men should support and respect women, and he detested men who he saw holding their wives back in their own self-interest.
For all of us who received it, Jack’s support was a super-power. It made us all walk taller; it made us all feel stronger. We will so miss him. I thank you, Mr Speaker, for your tribute, for your kindness to me and to his family, and for allowing us this time today to pay tribute to Jack.

IOPC Report on Metropolitan Police Officers' Conduct: Charing Cross Police Station

Matthew Offord: (Urgent Question): To ask the Home Secretary if she will make a statement on the Independent Office for Police Conduct report on police officers’ conduct at Charing Cross police station.

Kit Malthouse: As the House is aware, the Independent Office for Police Conduct yesterday published the findings of an investigation into bullying and discrimination at Charing Cross police station between 2016 and 2018. The report makes extremely disturbing reading. It describes abhorrent behaviour and misogynistic, racist and homophobic communications between officers, which appear to have become commonplace. On a personal note, as someone who knows the Met well, I cannot begin to describe my horror at the revelations in the report.
It is right that individuals found to have committed gross misconduct have been dismissed and cannot re-join policing. However, this is obviously about more than individuals; it is about how a toxic culture can develop and fester in parts of a police force—a culture that is allowed to go unchallenged until a brave officer blows the whistle or a message is discovered on an officer’s phone. These events have a corrosive impact on public trust in policing and undermine the work of the thousands of diligent and brave police officers who keep us safe every day. I am grateful for the work of the IOPC in investigating these allegations, and I expect the Metropolitan Police Service and the Mayor of London to implement the report’s recommendations as soon as practically possible.
We are also taking action to address these issues. The Home Secretary has established the Angiolini inquiry, which has now started, and Dame Elish is examining the career of Sarah Everard’s killer. While focused on that case, she will be considering whether the culture in the places where Sarah’s murderer worked meant that alarm bells did not ring earlier. In the second part of her inquiry, we expect a light to be shone on wider policing, including on those cultural issues.
In addition, at the Home Secretary’s request, Her Majesty’s inspectorate of constabulary and fire rescue services is currently inspecting forces across England and Wales to judge their vetting and counter-corruption capabilities. As part of this, we have specifically asked it to look at how forces are ensuring that misogyny and sexism are identified are dealt with in the workplace. We are also working closely with the National Police Chiefs’ Council to ensure professional standards on social media use for all police officers.
Being a police officer is an honour, conferring special status on those who serve. The findings of the IOPC’s report are shaming for those who have abused that honour and for the Metropolitan police. Standards must be raised. The precious bond of trust between the public and the police depends upon it.

Matthew Offord: As a London MP, there are few opportunities to seek answers on the performance of the Metropolitan police, so I am grateful to you, Mr Speaker, for granting this urgent question.
The publication of the report by the Independent Office for Police Conduct joins the list of misdemeanours that have occurred in the Met in recent years. The IOPC opened its investigation in March 2018 following claims that an officer had sex with a drunk person at a police station. This is, in itself, a criminal offence, and it is even more shocking following the rape and murder of Sarah Everard by a serving police officer less than a year ago. The report says that officers searched social media with the intention of having sex with people they have made contact with through being a victim of crime. This is an egregious breach of trust with the public and must be addressed immediately. Officers were found to have sent messages to a female on a shared group chat saying:
“I would happily rape you…if I was single I would happily chloroform you.”
Other officers gleefully boasted about their behaviour by sending messages including:
“You ever slapped your missus? It makes them love you more. Seriously since I did that she won’t leave me alone…Knock a bird about and she will love you. Human nature.”
It surely is not.
The investigation uncovered evidence in relation to bullying, violence towards women, perverting the course of justice, discriminatory language and other inappropriate behaviours. The range and severity of these messages demonstrates that they are not humorous comments but evidence of a sinister and obnoxious culture that has pervaded the very organisation and individuals who are supposed to uphold the law. Worst of all, it tarnishes the reputations of all the decent, hard-working employees of the MPS.
Where is the Mayor of London in all this? Recently we heard his comments on the cost of living, accusations about the Prime Minister, Brexit, levelling up and drug decriminalisation—on everything except what he is responsible for, the policing of London. While more young people are murdered on the streets of London and police officers commit crimes, we need leadership on keeping Londoners safe, and that is not happening.
Will the Minister, first, look at the Sexual Offences Act 2003 with a view to changing the law so that any person, of any age, who is in a position of trust with any other persons, regardless of their age, commits a criminal offence if they seek to involve the other person in sexual activity? Secondly, will he expand and speed up Baroness Casey’s review of the Metropolitan police’s culture and standards to take into account behaviours outside the realm of the workplace so that proper background checks are made on the appointment of MPS staff in all departments, including the MO7 taskforce? Finally, will he seek the establishment of a confidential complaints system in the MPS so that whistleblowers, particularly women, can raise their concerns without being subjected to campaigns of threats, intimidation, coercion and abuse by others?
Confidence in the MPS is incredibly low following a number of abuses. If the public decide they no longer have confidence in those who police them, then that really would be a crime.

Kit Malthouse: I share my hon. Friend’s horror at some of the messages that have been published, which really are abhorrent. As I understand it, the unit that is being investigated has since been disbanded, and quite rightly so, with disciplinary action following.
With regard to my hon. Friend’s specific requests, on the offence, I am certainly happy to look at that suggestion and explore it further as a possibility. On the Casey review, he is quite right that Dame Louise Casey has been appointed by the Metropolitan Police Commissioner to examine cultural issues within the force.
Obviously, that started with the appalling killing of Sarah Everard and the consequences thereof, but I am sure, knowing Dame Louise as I do, that she will be looking closely at all these issues as they unfold, sadly, on an almost weekly basis in the newspapers. I have asked today for a meeting with her so that I can understand exactly where her inquiry is going and establish for myself that it will fit neatly with the work we are doing, through the inspectorate and through the Angiolini inquiry, into wider issues of culture in the Met and elsewhere in policing. On the establishment of whistle-blowing systems, one of our specific requests of the inspectorate as it looks at all the police forces across the UK is that it make sures that adequate whistleblowing facilities are in place—or that the process is there—that will allow officers who want to call out bad behaviour to do so with confidence. Again, it is worth saying that although it is possible to put in place processes, practices, manuals and training, and we can do our best to train police officers and to instil in them the right values—that has never been more important than now, as we are having such a huge influx of new, young police officers waiting to be filled with the right kind of values—this still does point to a culture of leadership making it clear that such behaviour is not to be tolerated, and projecting confidence on officers to step forward and call out bad behaviour and this kind of communication. Whatever the processes we put in place, unless the wider leadership of UK policing is able to project that confidence, I think we will fail in our mission.

Sarah Jones: May I associate myself with the comments from the Minister, particularly his thanks to the IOPC for the report? The behaviour outlined in the report is truly appalling. As a woman and a mother, I found it chilling. Such shameful behaviour undermines policing and threatens public trust. The Metropolitan police must accept and urgently implement the IOPC’s 15 recommendations.
Sadly, this is not just an issue in London; there have been disgraceful cases involving misogyny or racism among officers in Sussex, Hampshire, Leicestershire and Scotland. Ministers will know about these—we have been aware of them for some years. It is not good enough to leave police forces to solve these problems, or to wait until all the different reviews are completed. We need action now from the Government to tackle discrimination and prejudice within policing, and to help rebuild confidence.
Police training needs overhauling now, so that police officers get ongoing training throughout their careers, including on anti-racism and on tackling violence against women and girls. Action is needed now on the wholly inappropriate use of social media to perpetuate prejudice or bullying. What are the Government doing now to make sure that that happens? Action is needed now to tackle racism within the police force, but the National  Police Chiefs’ Council action plan on race is 18 months overdue. Why is the Home Office not making sure that this happens sooner?
The Home Office inquiry after the murder of Sarah Everard is still non-statutory, meaning that it still does not have the full range of powers. Will the Minister listen to Labour’s calls and place it on a statutory footing? If the Government want to show that they believe in tackling misogyny, at a time when the rape charge rate has fallen to a record low of 1.3%, will the Minister finally commit now to making tackling violence against women a strategic policing requirement?
Confidence in the police is absolutely fundamental—to protecting victims, catching criminals and keeping our communities safe. We all want the police to be the best that they can be—victims deserve it, the public deserve it and all good police officers deserve it. We need a plan from the Government to make sure that that happens. The Metropolitan Police Commissioner must now spend every minute of her remaining time working to make the Met the best that it can be. That means tackling serious violence, and violence against women and girls, and getting prosecution rates up, but it also means a relentless focus on raising standards. Nothing less will do.

Kit Malthouse: I recognise that the hon. Lady’s job is to challenge the Government to do ever better, and I welcome her doing so, but I hope she will bring the same forensic challenge to the Mayor of London. Having done the job of deputy Mayor for policing and crime, I would certainly have taken responsibility for driving such changes forward from City Hall. Indeed, we faced similar problems between 2008 and 2012, established our own race and faith inquiry and drove through some of the very difficult reforms that were required a decade ago. I hope she will speak to her party colleague in City Hall and press him also to bring action.
While the hon. Lady is right to urge us into ever-greater action on these matters, I know she recognises that there is plenty of work already ongoing. We are, for example, working closely with the National Police Chiefs’ Council as part of the new national working group on inappropriate social media use by police officers, working out what more we can do to drive that down. I recently met the chair of the scrutiny panel for the NPCC race and equality plan, and I am confident she will be able to bring impetus, momentum and scrutiny to the work it is doing.
We have not made the Angiolini inquiry statutory, because we want to get on with it. We need speed if we are to solve some of these problems fast and maintain confidence in UK policing. If we find, in discussion with Dame Elish, that the statutory basis is required, we will consider that. For the moment, we want to get on with it fast and, as I say, the work has already started. We do not believe, given the way the police regulations are drawn, that Dame Elish will face any obstacle in obtaining the evidence she needs from those forces involved in stage 1 of the inquiry, but if obstacles are put in her way, we are committed to trying to remove them for her. We are examining the strategic policing requirement at the moment and will make announcements about what is or is not included in it in the months to come.

Nickie Aiken: Words cannot really cover how I felt when I read the IOPC report; that anybody could think that using such language is acceptable, let alone police officers—and police officers based in my constituency, in a police station just up the road. I will be meeting the borough commander for Westminster tomorrow to discuss the report and how he and his colleagues plan to bring its recommendations to pass. I also welcome the review by Dame Louise Casey; I have worked with her for many years and I know she will leave no stone unturned when it comes to looking at the culture of the Metropolitan Police.
Does my right hon. Friend agree, however, that although it is clear there are rogue police officers in the Metropolitan Police and other police services, there are thousands and thousands of dedicated and hardworking police officers up and down the country who are equally disgusted? Will he join me in thanking them for their service?

Kit Malthouse: I share my hon. Friend’s disgust at these events. As a former Westminster councillor and the London Assembly member for the area that includes Charing Cross police station, and having visited the police station to see its work in policing one of the most diverse, sensitive and difficult parts of the country and the capital, I find it shocking to see such evidence. I agree that that disgust and fury will be shared by the thousands of police officers across the United Kingdom who do extraordinary things every day to keep us safe. It will be shared not least, given the nature of the messages, by the ever increasing numbers of female and black and minority ethnic officers—the numbers in UK policing are now at an all-time high in both categories—who are doing their best to help us all in changing the face of British policing.

Diana R. Johnson: This report is truly shocking. One key issue is the screening out of unsuitable applicants right at the start. I want to ask about current recruitment and vetting, as so many officers are now being employed. Does the Minister believe that the use of solely online recruitment, assessment, checks and offers is appropriate? That is happening in several forces, where there are no face-to-face interviews. One recruit said that the first time he had a face-to-face interview was when he was being measured for his uniform. I will just quote what Karen Ingala-Smith of the anti-violence charity Nia said, referring to Sarah Everard’s killer:
“Couzens was at least the 15th serving or former officer to have killed a woman. Now is the time for more rigorous checks, not fast-track online selection processes”.

Kit Malthouse: As I am sure the Chair of the Select Committee will recognise, the advent of the pandemic meant that we had to find innovative ways to continue with our recruitment process. We are obviously reviewing them as we emerge from the pandemic, to ensure that we get them exactly right. As I explained earlier and as I am sure the right hon. Lady knows, we have commissioned a general inquiry across UK policing to look at vetting procedures to make sure that the police across the UK have consistency—because each force is responsible for its own vetting—and that that net is drawn as sharply as we possibly can to ensure that we get the right people into policing.
Critically, however, it is important that we monitor carefully how those new young police officers coming through feel and what they are being exposed to, and give them the confidence to know that where there is bad behaviour, they are able to call it out without detriment to themselves. There is not just one piece of the jigsaw; an entire machine needs to be built to ensure integrity in all police officers—to build confidence among the British people that the right people are getting into policing, that they are being maintained in policing and that, where things go wrong, corrective action can be taken quickly.

Maria Miller: The racism, misogyny and bullying uncovered by the report are damning, but I do not believe that it is reflective of the vast majority of our police forces, as my right hon. Friend just said. We owe it to those officers to root out this behaviour. The IOPC started its investigations four years ago, and similar investigations in Hampshire—as the Minister will know, as my near neighbour—took three years. What is my right hon. Friend doing to ensure that investigations are completed in a more reasonable timeframe, and that anonymity is not used to hide those who are involved in such heinous behaviours?

Kit Malthouse: My right hon. Friend is quite right that we need to ensure that inquiries are speeded up as much as possible. I hope that she will remember that, a year or so ago, we introduced reforms to the way in which the IOPC operates to push it to ever greater alacrity in its inquiries. Now, in the case of an inquiry going over 12 months, it is required to write a letter to the appropriate authority—whether that is the police and crime commissioner or me—to explain why. Often, the delay is the fault not necessarily of the IOPC, but of inquests, criminal inquiries or correspondence providing information that extends the timeframe. However, we need to know why.
As far as transparency and anonymity are concerned, I have written recently to all legally qualified chairs of disciplinary panels to say that there should be a stringent examination of whether those hearings need to be held in private or in public. It is absolutely vital for trust in policing that the British people not only know that justice is being done in a disciplinary process, but can see it too.

Several hon. Members: rose—

Rosie Winterton: Order. I want to try to get everyone in but, as colleagues are aware, we have another statement and then further business, so I request that questions are short and to the point, which will enable the Minister to be short and to the point as well.

Wera Hobhouse: In the last year alone, Cressida Dick was forced to make two public apologies for corruption and cover-up, in the Daniel Morgan murder case and—although she never apologised—for the atrocious mishandling of the vigil for Sarah Everard. We have seen the Met accused of institutional corruption, misogyny, racism and, following the Stephen Port killings, homophobia, not to mention the handling of the partygate fiasco. Now we have this damning report on the Charing Cross police station by the Independent Office for Police  Conduct. This lack of leadership and the culture of cover-up are letting down honourable rank-and-file police officers, so why did the Home Secretary think that it was remotely acceptable recently to extend Cressida Dick’s term, as opposed to demanding her resignation?

Kit Malthouse: Two of the matters that the hon. Lady refers to are still under investigation by Her Majesty’s inspectorate and I hope that that will conclude shortly. It is worth pointing out that this incident was discovered shortly after the commissioner became commissioner and the unit was disbanded shortly thereafter on her watch. The reason that her contract was extended is that we thought she was the best person for the job.

Felicity Buchan: As someone who represents a central London constituency, I am shocked and horrified by these revelations and the toxic culture that it represents in some parts of the Metropolitan police. Will my right hon. Friend assure me that he will bring up these concerns with the Mayor of London, because the Mayor needs to take responsibility for sorting out the culture of the Metropolitan police?

Kit Malthouse: As somebody who, as I said, served in City Hall as deputy mayor for policing, I can tell the House that the intention of the Greater London Authority Act 1999, which created the mayoralty and put the police authority and then the Metropolitan police under the control of the Mayor of London, was to ensure that the forensic examination of Met performance and internal processes could be done as close to the frontline as possible and that the Mayor should be in the driving seat.

Karen Buck: As one of the two Members of Parliament for Westminster, I have always greatly valued and supported the work of our local police, and I think that our good and decent police officers will also be appalled by what they have seen in the past few days. They know what we know—that policing a young, modern, diverse city such as Westminster and London is founded on trust. That trust will also be reflected by having a police service that reflects London, so will the Minister tell us what immediate steps he is taking to review the progress, which has faltered over recent years, in ensuring that London’s police service is as diverse in all its forms as the city that it polices?

Kit Malthouse: Hon. Members will have seen that, as part of our uplift programme not just in London, but elsewhere, we are specifically pushing to increase diversity both in terms of gender and race within policing. That is important nowhere more than in London and we have been working closely with the Metropolitan police to maximise the possibility of not only people from a BME background, but women joining the police force.

Florence Eshalomi: The Minister will be aware that I have spoken about the issue of the Met police on a number of occasions. I am very proud to represent Vauxhall in south London. It is a diverse constituency where, if I am honest, sometimes the relationship between the community and the police can be fractious. We have a number of great community  leaders who are willing to work and build the trust between the police and the community. However, reports such as this just blow that confidence out. How can I reassure my diverse community—my diverse community of young black children, of LGBT people, of women who feel let down by the police—that they can have confidence and trust in the police? How will the Minister address the issues relating to the fact that, when we come to summer, we will see our police out on the streets and the young who are fearful of the police will not trust them, women who want to go out across Vauxhall at night will be scared to approach the police, and our LGBT people who want to go out and enjoy themselves will not want to come forward to the police? How is he going to address that culture now?

Kit Malthouse: Having wrestled with these issues in the past, I completely agree with the hon. Lady that it is totally critical that there is a strong bond of trust with communities who have perhaps had a fractious relationship with the police. I think that the best thing that they can do is decide to be the change themselves, and I urge all communities in London and elsewhere to put forward their brightest and best to be police officers.

Clive Efford: Cutting 21,000 police officers since 2010 has led to the rush to recruit officers to backfill those gaps, and the vetting of those officers is crucial. Does the Minister think that recruiting people purely through interviews online and doing that vetting purely online is suitable, given that the police are such a customer-facing, hands-on—sometimes literally— service with the public?

Kit Malthouse: It is worth pointing out that, while the assessment process was online, once those police officers enter training, it is not accepted that they will necessarily be attested at the end. They are constantly assessed throughout their training on whether or not they are suitable. We continue to monitor their performance not just through training and in the immediate months after their acquisition, but thereafter. Having said that, we have to be slightly careful to bear in mind that, of the 11,000-odd who have stepped forward to be police officers, the vast majority of them are bright, smart, well-meaning and well-motivated people with the right kind of values to be police officers, and we have high hopes for them in the future.

Tulip Siddiq: The report was chilling. What worried me most was that the horrific cases were referred to the IOPC in 2018, yet the concerns about sexist discrimination and sexual harassment in the London Metropolitan police were not addressed by the time of the horrific murders of Bibaa Henry and Nicole Smallman, and Sarah Everard, who has been mentioned a few times. Like my hon. Friend the Member for Vauxhall (Florence Eshalomi), I have had young women in my constituency writing to me and saying that they do not feel safe walking around at night in my constituency. As someone who had a bad experience with the police before I became an MP, I ask the Minister to set out some tangible steps the Government are taking to ensure that the misogyny in the force is tackled and that they are actually doing a proper job, so I can reassure my young constituents that they are safe to walk around in Hampstead and Kilburn.

Kit Malthouse: As I explained earlier, we are engaging at all levels with the various actions plans that are in place to try to bring change in policing. And, of course, we are injecting a much more diverse shot of energy and personnel into policing through the uplift programme. However, it is—I am not making a political point—primarily the job of the Mayor of London to hold the commissioner to account on these issues. We are sending in the inspectors not just to London but to every force to look at their vetting and anti-corruption processes to make sure they are functioning well, but with a particular emphasis on the ability internally to call out exactly this kind of behaviour. It appears that this incident came to light after phones were brought in to be checked after a previous incident—this was referred to by my hon. Friend the Member for Hendon (Dr Offord)—and they were discovered almost accidentally. We have to ask why. Why were there not police officers calling out that behaviour? That is what we are sending in the inspectors to have a look at.

Gareth Thomas: The Minister will understand that this case, among other things, will reinforce the profound concern about the level of violence towards women and the lack of accountability for men who are responsible for that violence. As my hon. Friend the Member for Croydon Central (Sarah Jones) alluded to in her remarks, the Government have so far refused to make violence against women and girls a strategic policing priority. Given the seriousness of this latest report, the fact that it is not an isolated case and the clear need for cultural change across the Metropolitan police, will the Minister stop procrastinating and bring that in?

Kit Malthouse: We have not refused at all. We have said we will consider it, along with all the other horrendous crimes that, sadly, teem around this country and which we have to deal with. As I say, we will publish our findings on the strategic policing requirement shortly.

Wendy Chamberlain: I am the only female former police officer currently serving in this place. Although I served with dedicated officers, I would be lying if I said that I did not recognise an element of the culture from my own service over 28 years ago. Training is absolutely vital. Post the Stephen Lawrence inquiry, all police officers and staff across the UK attended three days of diversity training. It was a big undertaking, but it visibly demonstrated to the public that we were taking this seriously. What steps is the Minister taking and what conversations is he having with the College of Policing for something similar?

Kit Malthouse: The hon. Lady speaks with knowledge and she is exactly right. We are in intensive conversation with the College of Policing, which, as I hope she knows, is under new leadership, to ensure that we get the package of training exactly right, and, specifically, that the training catches up with modern phenomena, which perhaps it has been a little slow to do, such as social media.

Marsha de Cordova: The findings of this report were deeply shocking, but if we look just at this last year, we have seen that the Metropolitan police have deep-rooted structural problems, from racism  to bullying to misogyny. Currently, we have a commissioner in the job that I do not believe is fit for purpose. Does the Minister agree that, to really tackle the broken culture in the Metropolitan police, we also need to change the commissioner?

Kit Malthouse: I recognise that media coverage has the tendency to compress time. It is worth pointing out that the issue came to light in 2017 and the unit was disbanded in 2018. Charing Cross police station was merged into a wider borough operational command under new leadership, which is committed to driving out this kind of appalling behaviour. Whether that culture persists, and the vigour with which the Met is pursuing it, will be revealed, we hope, by both the Angiolini inquiry and the work of Dame Louise Casey. I urge the hon. Lady to wait for those conclusions.

Ruth Cadbury: This cultural problem does not just apply to Charing Cross, or even, as my hon. Friend the Member for Croydon Central (Sarah Jones) said, to the Met. It also does not just apply to middle-ranking and junior officers. As a councillor and now a Member of this House, I worked with Chief Superintendent Paul Martin and Chief Inspector Ricky Kandohla, who were both found guilty last week of gross misconduct and dismissed without notice for a series of offences. The chief superintendent led the three-borough basic command unit and was found to have committed bullying and discriminatory conduct towards a female police officer, misuse of a bank card, and impropriety over a promotion. Will the Minister assure the House that any reviews will address the cultures within our police forces right to the top of senior levels?

Kit Malthouse: That is our intention.

Anna McMorrin: The report not only makes for incredibly uncomfortable and difficult reading, but destroys public confidence. This is not just about the Met. Alongside the Government’s failure in the criminal justice system, where victims are let down and rape prosecutions have fallen to just 1.3%, how can the Minister expect victims of serious sexual assault and rape across the country to come forward? What will he do about that?

Kit Malthouse: I have previously expressed sincere regret for the results in the criminal justice system on rape. I hope the hon. Lady will recognise that some of our actions—not least Operation Soteria, which is showing good signs of making progress in this area—will give people more confidence in getting a result. However, the incidence of reported rape in this country continues to rise as more and more people come forward to report that appalling crime, and we must ensure that they are confident of getting justice through the criminal justice system. That is what the Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department, my hon. Friend the Member for Redditch (Rachel Maclean), and I are dedicated to.

Nadia Whittome: The IOPC’s report was truly damning, but it is not the only example of misogyny in the Met police that has come to light in the past couple of weeks. The Met has also been made to pay compensation to a woman in Nottingham who was deceived into a relationship with an undercover  officer, and it has been made to apologise to my constituent Dr Koshka Duff for misogynistic and derogatory comments made before and after a strip search. Does the Minister agree with the report’s conclusion that the incidents the IOPC investigated are
“not isolated or simply the behaviour of a few ‘bad apples’”?
Will he commit to an independent, public, statutory inquiry into institutional misogyny in the Metropolitan police?

Kit Malthouse: Given the incidents we have seen—I too was appalled by the incident to which the hon. Lady refers—it is hard not to agree with the IOPC conclusions. As I have explained in the past few minutes, several inquiries in this area are ongoing within the Met, and I think it best to wait for them to conclude before deciding on what the next steps may be.

Levelling Up

Michael Gove: Madam Deputy Speaker, I would like to make a statement on the Government’s plans to level up and unite our country.
The White Paper we are publishing today sets out our detailed strategy to make opportunity more equal and to shift wealth and power decisively towards working people and their families. After two long years of covid, we need to get this country moving at top speed again. We need faster growth, quicker public services and higher wages, and we need to allow overlooked and undervalued communities to take back control of their destiny.
While talent is spread equally across the United Kingdom, opportunity is not. Our country is an unparalleled success story, but not everyone shares in it. The further a person is from one of our great capitals—whether it is London, Edinburgh, Cardiff or Belfast—the tougher life can be. For every local success, there is a story of scarring and stagnation elsewhere, and that must change. We need to tackle and reverse the inequality that is limiting so many horizons and that also harms our economy. The gap between much of the south-east and the rest of the country in productivity, in health outcomes, in wages, in school results and in job opportunities must be closed. This is not about slowing down London or the south-east, or damping down animal spirts, but rather about turbocharging the potential of every part of the UK. This country will not achieve its full potential until every individual and community achieves everything of which they are capable. Our economy has been like a jet propelled by only one engine, now we need to fire up every resource that we have.
The economic prize from levelling up is potentially enormous. If underperforming places were levelled up towards the UK average, unlocking their full potential, this could boost aggregate UK GDP by tens of billions of pounds each year. So, how do we achieve success? First, we do so by backing business. The economic growth that we want to see across the UK will be generated by the private sector, by businesses and entrepreneurs investing, innovating, taking risks and opening new markets. We will support them every step of the way, by cutting through the red tape, by making it easier to secure investment and, as our White Paper today outlines, by creating the right environment on the ground for business.
As the Chancellor laid out in our Plan for Growth, we need to invest in science and innovation, improve infrastructure and connectivity, and extend educational opportunity to underpin economic success. This White Paper makes clear our commitment to improve education, investment and connectivity fastest in those parts of the country that have not had the support that they needed in the past. We have set out clear, ambitious missions, underpinned by metrics by which we can be held to account to drive the change that we need.
On productivity, science and innovation, our mission one is that, by 2030, we pledge that pay, employment and productivity will have risen in every area of the UK,   with each containing a globally competitive city; closing the gap between top performing areas and the rest. Mission two will see a massive increase in domestic public investment in research and development outside the greater south-east, increasing by at least a third in the next three years, and we will use the shift in resources to leverage private sector investment in the areas that need it most.
On infrastructure and connectivity, we will have better local transport, bringing the rest of the country closer to the standards of London’s transport system. We will also improve digital connectivity, with billions of pounds of investment, bringing nationwide gigabit-capable broadband and 4G coverage to the whole UK, and we will expand 5G coverage to the overwhelming majority of the population.
On education and skills, we will effectively eradicate illiteracy and innumeracy, with investment in the most-underperforming areas of the country. There will be 55 new education investment areas in England alone, driving school improvement in the local authorities where attainment is weakest. Our sixth mission is to have new high quality skills training, targeted at the lowest skilled areas, with 200,000 more people completing high quality skills training annually.
We know that, to achieve these missions, we will need smart, targeted, Government investment. That is why we are investing more than £20 billion in research and development to create a science and technology superpower. Today, we are allocating £100 million specifically to three new innovation accelerators in the west midlands, Glasgow and Greater Manchester. It is also why we are investing £5 billion in bus services and active travel, with new bus investment today in all our mayoral combined authorities and the green light for bus projects in Stoke-on-Trent, Derbyshire, Warrington and across the country. It is also why we are investing in new academies, new free schools and new institutes of technology. Today, we are establishing a new digital UK national academy—just as the UK established the Open University to bring higher education to everyone, we are making available to every school student in the country high quality online teaching, so geography is no barrier to opportunity.
We will also use the freedoms that we now have outside the EU to reform Government procurement rules to ensure that the money that we spend on goods and services is spent on British firms and British jobs. We will unashamedly put British workers first in the global race for investment. Economic opportunity, spread more equally across the country, is at the heart of levelling up, but levelling up is also about community as well. It is about repairing the social fabric of our broken heartlands, so that they can reflect the pride we feel in the places we love. That is why we are investing in 20 new urban regeneration projects, starting in Wolverhampton and Sheffield and spreading across the midlands and the north, with £1.8 billion invested in new housing infrastructure to turn brownfield land into projects across the country like Stratford and King’s Cross in London.
By regenerating the great cities and towns of the north, we can relieve the pressure on green fields and public services in the south. A more productive, even prouder and faster-growing north helps improve quality  of life and wellbeing in the south, which is why we are refocusing housing investment towards the north and midlands.
Our housing mission is clear: we will give renters a secure path to greater home ownership, we will drive an increase in first-time buyers and we will deliver a tough focus on decent standards in rented homes. A new £1.5 billion levelling-up home building fund will give loans to small and medium-sized builders to deliver new homes, the vast majority of which will be outside London and the south-east. Our housing plans will set a decent minimum standard that all rented properties must meet.
Our White Paper this spring will include plans to cut the number of poor-quality rented homes by half, address the injustice of “no fault” evictions and bear down on rogue landlords, thereby improving the life chances of children and families up and down the country.
We will also take action in law to tackle the problem of empty properties and vacant shops on our high streets. Building on the work of my hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent North (Jonathan Gullis), we will ensure that properties cannot remain unloved and unused for months, dragging down the whole high street. Instead, we will put every property to work for the benefit of the whole community.
Also central to improving quality of life for all will be further investment in sport, culture, nature and young people. That is why we are investing £230 million extra in grassroots football and using the community ownership fund to help fans take back control of clubs such as Bury FC. It is also why every extra penny of Arts Council spending will now be allocated outside London, from celebrating ceramics in Stoke to supporting pride in British history in Bishop Auckland. There will also be another £30 million allocated to improving parks and urban green spaces, as well as plans to re-green all of our green belt.
We will also invest an additional £560 million in activities for young people, and we will invest in reversing health disparities, tackling obesity and improving life expectancy. We will also ensure that the communities in which we are investing are safer and more orderly. Fighting crime and antisocial behaviour is essential to giving communities new heart, so we will invest an additional £150 million in our safer streets fund and ensure that those who drag down our communities through vandalism, graffiti and joyriding pay back their debt to those communities. They will be set to work on improving the environment, cleaning up public spaces, clearing away the drug debris in our parks and streets and contributing to civic renewal.
Critical to the success of our missions will be giving communities not just the resources but the powers necessary to take back control. That is why our White Paper sets out how we will shift more power away from Whitehall to working people. We will give new powers to outstanding local leaders such as Andy Street and Ben Houchen—[Interruption]—and, indeed, Dan Jarvis. We will create new Mayors where people want them, we will give nine counties including Derbyshire and Durham new powers as trailblazers in a programme of county deals and we will strengthen the hand of local leaders across the country.
We will also take back control of the money that the EU used to spend on our behalf, ensuring that local areas can invest in their priorities through the new UK  shared prosperity fund. With power comes responsibility, so we will also ensure that data on local government performance is published so that we can hold local leaders to account.
Central Government will report back to this House on our progress against our missions and on the impact all our policies have on closing geographical inequalities. Because building long-term structures matters, we will also create the institutions, generate the incentives and supply the information necessary to drive levelling up for years ahead.
This White Paper lays out a long-term economic and social plan to make opportunity more equal. It shifts power and opportunity towards the north and midlands, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland. It guarantees increased investment in overlooked and undervalued communities, in research and development, in education and skills, in transport and broadband, in urban parks and decent homes, in grassroots sport and local culture and in fighting crime and tackling antisocial behaviour. It gives local communities the tools to tackle rogue landlords, dilapidated high streets and neglected green spaces, and it demonstrates that this people’s Government are keeping faith with the working people of this country by allowing them to take back control of their lives, their communities and their futures.
I commend this statement to the House.

Lisa Nandy: After all the delays, all the slogans and all the big promises, is this it? Is this really it? The sum total of ambition for our proud coastal and industrial—[Interruption.]

Rosie Winterton: Order. The Secretary of State was heard with respect. I do not expect the shadow Secretary of State to be shouted out.

Lisa Nandy: Conservative Members do not disrespect us when they chunter and jeer; they disrespect the people of this country.
Seriously, is this it? The sum total of ambition for our coastal and industrial towns, our villages and our great cities is a history lesson on the rise of the Roman empire, and Ministers scurrying around Whitehall, shuffling the deckchairs and cobbling together a shopping list of recycled policies and fiddling the figures. Is this really it?
For some of us, this is personal. We have lived these failures every single day. We have watched good jobs go, our high streets boarded up and young people who have had to get out to get on. The Secretary of State talks about Bury FC. My step-dad was a lifelong supporter of Bury FC, a regular at Gigg Lane and his last words to my step-brother before he died were, “What’s the score?” If he were alive today, he would never forgive the Government for standing aside while this asset at the centre of Bury’s community was allowed to collapse.
This system is completely broken, and the Secretary of State has given us more of the same. This was meant to be the Prime Minister’s defining mission of Government. I am not surprised he was too embarrassed to come here today and defend it himself. It is so bad that even  the Secretary of State has privately been saying that it is rubbish. They tell us to wait till 2030, but where have they been for the last 12 years? I will tell them where—in Whitehall, turbocharging the decline of our communities, and cutting off choices and chances for a generation of young people.
The Secretary of State talks about 12 missions, but this is 12 admissions of failure. Let us take one of them. Only two thirds of children leave primary school with the basic skills to get on. Forgive me if I have missed something, but was he not the Education Secretary for four years? What about this? The Government want to tackle crime, but on their watch fewer than one in 10 crimes are solved and nearly all rapes go unprosecuted. No one listening to this would think that he had been in charge of the Ministry of Justice.
This is a Government in free fall—out of ideas, out of energy—with recycled, watered-down ambitions. None of this is new. In fact, some of it is so old that one of the better announcements that caught my eye was actually made in 2008 by Gordon Brown and has been running ever since. Across our home towns, we have seen good jobs disappear and far too many young people who have had to get out to get on. This does nothing to address that.
The Secretary of State talks about a Medici-style renaissance, but can he not see what is happening in front of his eyes? Our high streets are struggling because the local economy is struggling. People do not have money to spend in our shops, our businesses and our high streets, and the Government are about to hike up their taxes. This does nothing to address that. What we needed was a plan to connect our towns and villages to jobs, to opportunities and to our family and friends, but they have halved the funding for buses and scrapped the rail promises to the north, and where is the digital Britain we were promised?
We do not need to look to Rome, Jericho or renaissance Florence for inspiration, because in Preston, Wigan and Grimsby, people are delivering real change for themselves, not because of their Government, but despite them. Imagine what we could do if they would get out of the way and give us back the power that we demand to make decisions for ourselves. [Laughter.] Well, Conservative Members laugh. They do laugh—they have been laughing at us for years—and here it goes again.
It is absurd that we have to go cap in hand to Westminster to do things that we know will work for us. Do not believe me; believe the former Mayor of London, who in 2013 demanded powers that are nowhere to be seen in this report. We asked for powers, and we got a process. Where are the powers we were promised? Seriously, we have the arrogance of a Chancellor sitting in Whitehall, drawing lines on a map, choosing which of us have earned the right to have some say on the decisions that affect not their lives, but our lives, our families and our communities.
The Secretary of State talks about London-style regeneration. My colleagues in London will talk proudly about the London they call home, but not every part of this country wants to be the same. We have our own identities. We are proud of our own places. We believe in our communities and we believe in our people, and we deserve a Government who back us, not the smoke and mirrors that we have been handed today.
The Government have given more to fraudsters than they have given to the north of England. For every £13 they have taken from us, they have given us £1 back. We get a partial refund and they expect us to be grateful. [Interruption.] I will give the House an example. The Mayor of Greater Manchester today raised broken promises on rail, and he was told by one of the Government’s MPs, “Don’t bite the hand that feeds you.”
It is not their money; it is ours. Imagine what we could achieve if we had a Government with an ambition for Britain that matched the ambition of the people in it. We could build good jobs in every community. There is a global race to create these jobs, and we will bring them here so that young people in our coastal and industrial towns can power us through the next generation, like their parents and grandparents powered us through the last. In every community in this country, people know that we can do so much better than this, with well-paid jobs and money back in people’s pockets to genuinely transform our high streets. We can reform business rates to back our bricks and mortar businesses. We can be buying, making and selling more in Britain and have an educational recovery plan that stands as a testament to our commitment to the young people who make this country what it is. That is our mission, and today we have learned one crucial thing: for all the spin and all the gloss, the Government will not do it, because they do not believe in this country—we will. [Interruption.]

Rosie Winterton: Order. I think you are preventing the Secretary of State from speaking. I suggest that a modicum of silence from those on the Back Benches would be welcome.

Michael Gove: I have enormous respect and affection for the hon. Lady, but at the end of her response, I do not think I heard a single question, nor did I hear her disagree with a single policy that we have put forward. She is in distinguished company; she joins other Labour colleagues who have welcomed the White Paper, such as Tracy Brabin, the Mayor of West Yorkshire, who said there is
“lots to be pleased about”
in it, and the Mayor of South Yorkshire, who said on Sunday that he warmly welcomed the support that we were giving to Sheffield and that it was
“much needed recognition of the potential”
of that great city. I am glad that the hon. Lady is in good Labour company in welcoming the White Paper.
The hon. Lady mentioned Bury FC, and she suggested that this Government had stood aside. I am sorry, but this Government provided £1 million to the fans of Bury FC so that they could take back control of the club. It was not Labour Bury Council but Tory Ministers who saved that football club for its fans.
She asks where we have been over the past 12 years and about my time as Education Secretary. My mother said self-praise is no honour, but since the hon. Lady asks, there were more good and outstanding schools as a result. We closed the gap between rich and poor, we extended opportunity and we ensured that illiteracy and innumeracy were tackled.
The hon. Lady also says that we need more good jobs. I completely agree. That is why we have a plan for growth and she has no plan. She says that we need to  revive our high streets. I completely agree. That is why we have a plan for investment, and the Opposition have no plan. She says that she wants improved connectivity. That is why we have ensured that gigabit connectivity has gone from 10% to 60% in the past two years, and they have no plan. She says that she believes in devolution. We have nine county deals and powers for Mayors. The only devolution in England that Labour ever offered was to London. It did nothing for the north and midlands when it came to devolution. She said she wants safer town centres. Why is it, then, that every time we have brought forward policies for tougher sentences in this House, Labour has voted against? It has no plans, no idea and no answers.
The Opposition also ask about new money. Do they not remember that Liam Byrne wrote in 2010 when the Labour Government left office that there was no money left? Now, they are so fiscally inconstant that they say they want simultaneously not to have a national insurance increase and to cut other taxes, and at the same time to increase public spending. Our commitment to abolish innumeracy cannot come quickly enough, starting with the Labour Front Benchers. My right hon. Friend the Chancellor has committed £500 million to tackling adult innumeracy; we know where that funding should go first. If they had their way, borrowing would go up, interest rates would go up, and the poorest in the north and midlands would lose out; instead of levelling up, they would bring the economy crashing down. That is why we never need to have those Front Benchers in power in this country ever.

Several hon. Members: rose—

Rosie Winterton: Order. A little reminder that the Secretary of State should not refer to hon. Members by name.
It is going to require a lot of self-discipline if we are to have any chance of getting everybody in, so I ask for very short questions. The Father of the House will provide a marvellous example of that, I am sure: Sir Peter Bottomley.

Peter Bottomley: I say to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State that those in the south-east hope this will be successful, giving individuals opportunity and changing the economic geography of the parts of this country that need to be connected to the thriving country we hope to create together. Will he heed council leaders such as Councillor Kevin Jenkins in Worthing, who wants Ministers to pay attention to things that they could do that would help and to stop doing things that do not help, because all over the country we need Ministers to pay more attention to local leaders?

Michael Gove: My hon. Friend is absolutely right, and in the levelling-up White Paper there is a commitment to ensure greater devolution all round. I signalled the county deals we are green-lighting for Derbyshire and Durham, but we are also devolving more power to local authorities across the country, including through the new UK shared prosperity fund. He is also right to remind us that, while deprivation is concentrated disproportionately in the north and midlands, there are pockets of genuine poverty in communities such as Worthing and Hastings that we need to pay close attention to.

Tommy Sheppard: This is somewhat underwhelming, is it not? Not so much a dead cat as a damp squib. This might have been an opportunity to bring forward proposals for the modernisation of government in these islands, to devolve further powers and competence to the national Administrations, and to do something about the asymmetric and centralised mess that is the government of England, but, no, what we are promised is that in eight years’ time we will get a better bus service. It is, frankly, insulting given the amount of political capital that the Government have invested in this. This is a Government who have broken trust with the British people, and getting it back will require people and policies of substance, rather than glib soundbites and photo opportunities for Ministers in hard hats and hi-viz vests. The statement literally has nothing in it for the people I represent in this House, but we will watch with interest as this con is perpetrated on the people of the north of England.
Meanwhile, in Scotland we have another Brexit betrayal: the replacement funds for the EU structural funds are falling £900 million short, and control is being centralised to Whitehall. That is what we are receiving from this Government, and that is why more and more people are turning to the option of political independence for their country.
My central question is this: how does this square with the rest of the Government’s policies? We have a chronic and increasing problem with inequality in Britain, yet everything this Government do seems to make it worse: the decision to cut universal credit and the below-inflation increases in other benefits are driving the gap between rich and poor even higher; so, too, is the decision to increase basic rate taxes and not to increase taxes for those who can most afford them; and so, too, is the Government’s inaction and unwillingness to do anything about the cost of living and spiralling energy bills. So my question, Secretary of State, is this: given all of that—given the Government’s policy in the round—is this not just a piece of meaningless window dressing?

Michael Gove: The short answer is no. The longer answer is this: we work in partnership with the Scottish Government, and we recognise their devolved responsibilities, but people in Scotland pay their taxes to have two Governments working together for them, and that is what we have done. The levelling-up fund has ensured that there has been investment in North Ayrshire, in Edinburgh and in Aberdeen, to help communities and councils led by Scottish nationalist councillors, and that has been backed by SNP MPs. The UK shared prosperity fund has also guaranteed funds going to Scotland, ensuring that Scotland, Wales, Northern Ireland and Cornwall receive every bit as much outside the EU as they ever did within it, but with our control of that funding, not the European Union’s.
Today, we have announced additional funding for an innovation accelerator in Glasgow. In Glasgow University and the University of Strathclyde, Glasgow has two of the United Kingdom’s leading research universities. We are supporting and backing them. I explained to the First Minister last night how important it was that we worked together, and we will seek to work together.
When it comes to inequality, the Scottish Government have presided over growing inequality in education outcomes in schools in Scotland. We want to work with  them to reverse that. When it comes to devolution, rather than devolving more powers to local government in Scotland, as we are doing in England, the Scottish Government have centralised powers. The Convention of Scottish Local Authorities has been eloquent in complaining about that. Again, that is a devolved matter, but if the critique from the hon. Gentleman is to carry force, it is vital that he recognises the beam in his own eye before pointing out the mote in others.

Greg Clark: What the towns and cities of our country need is ambition, investment and encouragement, not the negativity and neglect that I am afraid they have experienced under the Labour party over the years. As a Teessider born and bred, and as someone who negotiated and signed the devolution deal with Teesside six years ago, I am proud to see it leading this White Paper thanks to the great progress it has made under Ben Houchen.
Does the Secretary of State recognise that building on such successful policy innovations is the best way to go, rather than needing to start from scratch in every case? In that context, does he recognise that the role of universities and scientific institutions, which are strong in the regions, is a good place to invest and to drive further prosperity across the UK?

Michael Gove: My right hon. Friend was a brilliant Secretary of State both for Communities and Local Government and for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy. He was, more than anyone else—apart from the former Chancellor, the former right hon. Member for Tatton—responsible for extending devolution across England. He is absolutely right: this is a model that works and on which we can build. He is also absolutely right to say that higher education is critical to the economic future of the north and the midlands, where we have outstanding universities. The increased research and development spending that we are announcing today will be directed towards those excellent institutions. Whether for life sciences in Newcastle, renewables in Teesside or materials in Manchester, we will be working with those universities to revive the north and the midlands.

Rosie Winterton: I call the Chair of the Levelling Up, Housing and Communities Committee.

Clive Betts: I thank the Secretary of State for an advance copy of the White Paper, although I have to admit that I have not quite read it all yet.
When the Select Committee has looked at this issue in the past, we have agreed that local councils have to be key to delivering a levelling-up agenda, and that means a devolution framework, with all councils getting real new powers and real new resources to deliver. When I looked at page 140, I saw the words “devolution framework”, and I was encouraged. Will the Secretary of State confirm, however, that in that list of powers, there is not a single new power? All the powers in there are already available to at least some local authorities, and all this framework does is enable more local authorities to have those powers. What is certainly not set out is a list of new resources that will be available to enable the spread of existing powers to more local authorities to be delivered in practice. Will he confirm those two things?

Michael Gove: It is a typically fair and informed question from the hon. Gentleman. What the framework does lay out is how local authorities that have fewer powers can acquire more, and how we can have a convergence towards a model, which not every part of the country will necessary want to adopt, that is closer to the level of power and autonomy that the Mayor of London exercises. We are completely open, and we have said so, to negotiating with local areas on the acquisition of further powers.
I should also say that the UK shared prosperity fund prospectus that we are publishing today makes it clear that lower-tier local authorities especially will have additional resources, through the UKSPF, to enhance their ability to serve their citizens.

Anne Marie Morris: I congratulate the Secretary of State on his “Levelling Up” paper, but particularly mission 7 to level up health outcomes and wellbeing. Will he meet me to discuss levelling up health and care provision in rural areas as part of that mission, a blueprint for which was published yesterday in a report co-authored by the all-party parliamentary group on rural health and social care, which I chair, and the National Centre for Rural Health and Social Care?

Michael Gove: Yes, I absolutely will. The hon. Lady makes an important point. Of course improving economic productivity is at the heart of levelling up, but we also need to tackle unfair health outcomes. Within the White Paper, we have details of how we are proposing to do so, not least taking forward some of the recommendations of Henry Dimbleby’s national food strategy, which outlines how we can effectively tackle obesity—one of the greatest drivers of diabetes, which is one of the greatest drains on NHS resources.

Naseem Shah: I wrote to the Secretary of State on 19 January and I have not had a response to that letter, but in it I cited research from Utopia, which, after analysing 34 cities and towns, found that Bradford needed the most development and infrastructure support. We have lost out on Northern Powerhouse Rail, stifling £30 billion-worth of investment over the next 10 years. We have been given crumbs. What is he doing for my constituents in Bradford West—he has mentioned nothing in his statement today—after failing them time and again with the NPR?

Michael Gove: The hon. Lady is right. Bradford is a fantastic city—it has seen significant investment, not least in cultural renewal, and it has a wonderful university—but it also has areas of real deprivation, not least in the constituency that she represents. I look forward to working with her, and with Tracy Brabin and municipal leaders in Bradford, to ensure that the policies in the White Paper can deliver for her constituents.

Damian Green: I very much welcome this White Paper—a genuinely one-nation Conservative document. I particularly commend my right hon. Friend and his colleagues on the health commitment it makes. Five years’ extra healthy lifespan will be absolutely critical in spreading opportunity not just to disadvantaged people but to disadvantaged communities, because health inequalities hold people back almost more than anything else. Frankly, we can have all the transport infrastructure  we like, but if people in middle age are too unhealthy to lead full lives and to stay in work, they cannot benefit from it. Will he go into a bit more detail about how he will achieve that ambition?

Michael Gove: Absolutely. My right hon. Friend is right: this is a one-nation document that is in that Conservative tradition. He is also absolutely right that addressing health inequalities is vital, not just to relieving pressure on the NHS for taxpayers but to giving people the full lives that they deserve. We outline in the White Paper some of the steps that we are taking, not least to deal with obesity, but, in addition, my right hon. Friend the Health Secretary will be bringing forward a health inequalities White Paper a little later this year, and I will be working with him to take forward some of the insights of Professor Michael Marmot and others about what the drivers of health inequalities are and how we can tackle them.

Dan Jarvis: I thank the Secretary of State and the Under-Secretary, the hon. Member for Harborough (Neil O’Brien), for the briefing that they gave to the Mayors and myself yesterday. However, it is a shameful indictment of our country that, for too long, where you grow up has determined where you end up. We all know that to address these challenges requires transformational resources. What more can the Secretary of State do and how can we help him to get the Chancellor to provide additional resources to deliver on the plan that he has brought forward?

Michael Gove: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for making that point. I hope to have the chance to visit him in Sheffield before too long to discuss how we can use some of the funding that was allocated in the spending review more effectively on his behalf, and how we can ensure that future spending commitments from the Chancellor and from others serve the people whom he serves.

John Redwood: I welcome the emphasis on personal journeys and improvement of free enterprise. Freeports can make a great contribution to that, so will the Government bring forward a freeport for Northern Ireland to show that it is properly part of the United Kingdom and, with it, to see off the EU threat to our Union?

Michael Gove: My right hon. Friend makes an important point. The Government are committed to ensuring that we have two additional freeports in Scotland, at least one in Wales and one in Northern Ireland, and announcements on those should be forthcoming shortly.

Sammy Wilson: I welcome the White Paper and the Government’s paying attention to levelling up across the United Kingdom—as a Unionist, I see that as important to assure citizens they are considered part of the United Kingdom. However, many people in Northern Ireland will say that new red tape as a result of the Northern Ireland protocol is strangling our economy. How do the proposals in the White Paper benefit people in Northern Ireland in terms of education, jobs, research, housing, crime and so on? How does the Secretary of State seek to level up Northern Ireland through that?

Michael Gove: The right hon. Member makes a series of good points. First, I absolutely understand the problems with the protocol, and my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary is working incredibly hard to tackle them. Secondly, we recognise that the Northern Ireland Executive exercise devolved responsibilities in a number of areas, but we can help: additional funding for research and development means that Queen’s University Belfast and the University of Ulster can get additional funding to create the jobs that Northern Ireland requires. The broader economic strategy that we outline in the White Paper is designed to help every part of the United Kingdom, and, through the UK shared prosperity fund, there will be additional funding. UK community renewal funding and levelling-up funding has been distributed to communities in Northern Ireland, but we need to do better in ensuring that it reaches those who deserve it most, not least those in areas such as Larne and Glenarm in the right hon. Gentleman’s constituency.

Alicia Kearns: Leicestershire and Rutland councils were some of the worst funded in the entire country—until today. Thanks to the Secretary of State, Leicestershire is one of the nine counties that will be negotiating a county deal. Will he please reassure me that when he negotiates a deal for Leicestershire, he will include Rutland, which cannot go for its own county deal? It needs a sidecar deal. Will he also help us level up pride by coming to visit our wonderful area?

Michael Gove: That is an offer too good to resist. I will say two things. First, Leicester and Leicestershire have much to offer, but there are also significant pockets of deprivation not just in the city but in rural Leicestershire that we must tackle. My hon. Friend is right that the county deal that we are proposing will—I hope—help. Secondly, I know that Rutland’s independence is cherished by its people and its Member of Parliament, but on this occasion there can be—how can I put it—a fruitful union between Leicestershire and Rutland, and I would like to see that advance.

Catherine McKinnell: The Secretary of State will know the impact of growing up poor on health, education and life chances, because it is well documented. But, even before the pandemic, two in five children and young people in the north-east were growing up in poverty, so it is hard to understand why the White Paper does not address the lack of cross-Government strategy to tackle child poverty. If levelling up is to mean anything, surely it must address that issue in the north-east.

Michael Gove: The hon. Lady makes a good point. Indeed, there is a commitment in the White Paper to additional funding for the supporting families programme —previously the troubled families programme—which helps to address many of the drivers of child poverty. Of course, I would be the first to acknowledge that there is more to do, and in communities in Newcastle—in Longbenton and elsewhere—there are real challenges that we need to work with Newcastle City Council to overcome. The council’s Labour leader is someone with whom I think we can do business.

Jake Berry: I welcome the White Paper. I am sure that the Secretary of State would acknowledge that delivering foreign direct investment  is key to levelling up the north and beyond. Would he consider a 13th mission: to double FDI in the north of England by 2030?

Michael Gove: May I thank my right hon. Friend? Many of the best ideas in the White Paper are the fruit of work that he and the Northern Research Group of Conservative MPs have conducted. The paper that he co-wrote for the Centre for Policy Studies, “A Northern Big Bang”, has influenced our thinking in a number of areas, not least unlocking additional private sector investment. My noble Friend Lord Grimstone, the Department for International Trade Minister, now leads the Office for Investment, and one of his missions is to increase FDI, particularly in the north and midlands. I look forward to working with Lord Grimstone and my right hon. Friend to ensure that east Lancashire is at the front of the queue for that investment.

Tim Farron: I thank the Secretary of State for his statement and for the White Paper, which is very thoughtfully put together—not least because the foreword by the Prime Minister is on a detachable page. That is great.
One page that appears to have already been detached, however, is the bit that refers to rural Britain. I am really concerned that there is very little concern in the document for levelling up the rural parts of our country. In Cumbria, we have three-hour round trips for cancer treatment and a threat to our local A&E department, and our villages and communities are being cleared by second homes and Airbnb. I would be delighted to work constructively with the Secretary of State, and I would love if it he agreed to meet me so that we can talk about some answers to the housing catastrophe affecting not just Cumbria, but the rest of rural Britain.

Michael Gove: I have to say, I agree with almost everything the hon. Gentleman said. First, it is important that we focus on rural poverty; secondly, there are unique issues in Cumbria. Local government reorganisation, with the creation of one new authority in Cumberland and one in Westmorland and Furniss, will contribute to ensuring that we have a proper focus on those, but we need to go further. He is also right that the issue of second homes and their impact on local economies is a complex one. We are not in the right place yet, and I want to work with him and other colleagues to address it.

Lia Nici: It was wonderful to be able to welcome my right hon. Friend to my constituency this week to see the amount of levelling up that is needed and the work we are doing with our local council to achieve it. Does he agree, however, that it is about not just school education, but technical education for our young and older people—something new Labour was able to decimate very effectively when it was in power, but which is vital to matching up jobs and opportunities to level up areas such as Great Grimsby?

Michael Gove: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. If we think about the technical institute in Grimsby, which was a source of pride and high-quality further education, some of the changes that the new Labour Government made undermined that centre of excellence. One thing we are clear about in the White Paper is the importance of ensuring that further education is aligned with the needs of local employers. In Grimsby and north-east  Lincolnshire, as part of the renewables revolution led by the Business Secretary, there is now a chance to ensure new jobs, investment in FE and a recognition of the link between the two, so that in Grimsby people can stay local, but go far.

Chris Matheson: I always enjoy listening to the Secretary of State, who is always very articulate and performs well at the Dispatch Box. I wish him well in the forthcoming Tory leadership election. There is an obsession, which he has illustrated today, with elected Mayors; I understand he has briefed them, but not the leaders of local authorities. In Cheshire West and Chester, the Government have taken £466 million since 2010 from our local authority, and the only way we can win funding back is by bidding to this pot or that pot, which is decided by Ministers. If he is going to increase funding for local authorities, will he please remember those areas that are not covered by directly elected Mayors, but nevertheless have outstanding leaders such as Louise Gittins?

Michael Gove: I thank the hon. Gentleman. Been there, done that, got knocked back twice, so I am afraid I am not going round that course again. I will agree that it is important that we talk to all local leaders. I personally think the devolution of power to mayoral combined authorities has been a good thing, but it is not right for everywhere in this country. There are ways we can strengthen the hands of local leaders, and I look forward to doing so in Cheshire.

Edward Leigh: Gainsborough South West ward is the 24th most deprived ward in the country. I thank the Secretary of State for awarding us £10 million in levelling up, but does he agree, looking at the overall picture, that the prosperity of northern industrial towns was built not with Government money, but by entrepreneurs in the 19th and early 20th century, when regulation and taxation were a fraction of what they are now? What plans does he have, with his colleagues, to try to reduce the burden of regulation and taxation on towns in the north of England?

Michael Gove: My right hon. Friend is correct; that is why I sought in my statement to emphasise that levelling up can only succeed if British business and private enterprise succeed. That means the right regulatory framework, outside the European Union, as we spelled out on Monday. There are steps we have taken and can take to ensure that we have smarter and leaner regulation.
More broadly, I think that if we look at the success of great industrial towns in the past, we see that figures such as Joe Chamberlain were driven by the spirit of private enterprise, but by civic pride as well. Chamberlain provided an example of great local leadership, and also of ambition to improve education. The mission that he led in Birmingham to ensure that universal education was extended even to the poorest was the perfect complement to the drive that he showed in generating wealth through the market.

Hilary Benn: One of the great inequalities in my constituency is the gap between those who are able to feed their families and those who are not. In every year since the Government took office the use of food banks has increased, and last year 2.5 million food parcels were given out to people who had gone up  to a complete stranger and said, “Can you help me to feed my family?” What are the Government going to do to bring an end to this scandal?

Michael Gove: The right hon. Gentleman makes a very important point. We have taken, and continue to take, a series of steps through the supporting families programme. We are also outlining in the White Paper some of the proposals that we are taking forward as part of Henry Dimbleby’s national food strategy, which explicitly addressed some of the particular challenges to which the right hon. Gentleman has rightly drawn attention, to ensure that people have the resources and the capacity to put healthy food on the table for their children. I look forward to perhaps visiting Leeds with Henry Dimbleby to talk to the right hon. Gentleman about exactly how we can achieve the change that we need.

Siobhan Baillie: I am saddened by the characteristic doom and gloom on the Labour Benches. We should be welcoming confirmation that we will be turbo-charging every single part of the UK, including the south-west, and recognising the importance of the private sector to achieving those goals will be key. In Stroud we have a fantastic town centre regeneration plan, which is backed up by recent private investment in previously long-standing empty buildings such as the Imperial Hotel and Five Valleys, and buildings in King Street. Will my right hon. Friend dispatch his levelling-up Minister to Stroud so that he can see how far the marriage between private and public money that we are hoping to achieve could go for local people?

Michael Gove: The Under-Secretary of State for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities, my hon. Friend the Member for Harborough (Neil O’Brien), is hereby dispatched to Stroud—first class.

Lilian Greenwood: How can we take seriously the Secretary of State’s promise to turbo-charge places such as my city when his Government have spent 12 years draining the fuel tank and slashing the tyres? If his offer of a county deal is to deliver meaningful change, does it not need to start with restoring the £100 million that Nottingham has lost through cuts in council funding?

Michael Gove: Nottingham has a bright future, and Nottinghamshire has an even brighter one, with my hon. Friend the Member for Mansfield (Ben Bradley) as leader of that council, leading a programme of urban development and regeneration. I look forward to working with the hon. Lady, and with my hon. Friend the Member for Mansfield, to ensure that we make Nottinghamshire great again.

Jesse Norman: The Secretary of State will know that Herefordshire has one of the smallest and sparsest populations and some of the lowest gross value added in this country. He will also know of my passion for the New Model Institute for Technology and Engineering, which promises to offer entirely new forms of learning and teaching, lower drop-out rates, lower levels of mental ill health, and much greater inclusiveness for young people in skills-based higher education—it is the small modular nuclear reactor of higher education. Will the Secretary  of State encourage this model, and will he consider, call for and initiate a review of higher education in order to regenerate cities and towns across the UK?

Rosie Winterton: Order. It is important for Members to be very brief, because otherwise we will not get everyone in.

Michael Gove: My right hon. Friend’s new model institute is a perfect model of what was envisaged by the former Member of Parliament for Orpington when he was the higher education Minister and introduced reform to ensure that we improved access to higher education, but with a particular focus on skills and jobs. I look forward to working with him and the Education Secretary to spread this model through across the UK.

Kevan Jones: I thank the Secretary of State for his statement. He announced a county devolution deal for County Durham, which has lost £224 million in Government grants since 2010. At the same time, his own county council’s spending powers have gone up. Will the devolution deal replace anywhere near the £22.4 million a year that County Durham has lost?

Michael Gove: I am looking forward to working with the new Conservative and Liberal Democrat Administration in Durham county—the first non-Labour Administration for many years, following on from the success of my hon. Friends the Members for North West Durham (Mr Holden), for Bishop Auckland (Dehenna Davison) and for Sedgefield (Paul Howell) in winning their seats at the last general election. Sadly, the Labour Administration of Durham County Council were responsible for significant maladministration and the waste of resources. I am convinced that the new Administration will spend taxpayers’ money better.

Johnny Mercer: I commend my right hon. Friend for his statement. Since 2015, Plymouth has been on an amazing journey, with more inward investment than it has seen for decades. I echo the plea of my right hon. Friend the Member for Ashford (Damian Green) that the levelling up of opportunities—an extension of the life chances agenda that we started back in 2015—becomes a defining issue for this Government. Will he remember the seats in the south-west? We talk about the red wall, which is all brilliant, new and exciting, but we have a real job of work to do to improve life chances in the south-west.

Michael Gove: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. There are real pockets of poverty that we need to address in the south-west, particularly around Plymouth. The same is true in parts of the south, particularly in Portsmouth and Southampton. Although there is understandably a focus on the north and midlands, our broader focus is on moving prosperity and investment outside of London and the south-east, precisely to communities such as the one he serves so well.

Stephanie Peacock: The Coalfields Regeneration Trust, based in Wombwell, is the only organisation dedicated to supporting former mining towns in the UK. Its vital work includes improving   health outcomes, providing employment support and boosting skills for communities where levelling up is needed most. Will the Secretary of State agree to meet the trust to learn more about its work?

Michael Gove: Of course, I would be delighted to.

Philip Hollobone: I welcome the designation of North Northamptonshire as an education investment area. Would the Secretary of State be kind enough to explain to my constituents what that will mean for educational outcomes in Kettering?

Michael Gove: Children in Kettering deserve the very best start in life. First of all, that means a relentless focus on standards and discipline. It means ensuring that we have systematic synthetic phonics in primary school, and that children are fully literate, numerate and capable of going to secondary school by the time they reach the end of key stage 2. It means multi-academy trusts, which are delivering higher standards where existing schools have failed. It can also mean—I would be happy to discuss this with my hon. Friend—a new 16 to 19 sixth form like Brampton Manor or Harris Westminster, providing children from working-class backgrounds with the chance to go to the very best universities.

Alistair Carmichael: I welcome the creation of the “Islands Forum” referred to on page 132 of the White Paper, and the news that the Secretary of State is to chair its first meeting—it is in his hands to ensure that it is not a talking shop. Item No. 1 on the agenda for that meeting has to be “Island future transport infrastructure needs”. The communities in Shetland are desperate to see the construction of tunnels and fixed links, and he could be the person to get the Scottish Government and the Treasury together to deliver that. Is he up for the challenge?

Michael Gove: I am completely up for it. There are issues of connectivity and access to good quality services and investment in Orkney and Shetland, the Western Isles, Anglesey and the Isle of Wight. Although they are very different communities, they have shared interests. I will absolutely do what the right hon. Gentleman says.

Selaine Saxby: I thank my right hon. Friend for his statement and—I say this as a former maths teacher—for his enthusiasm for numeracy. Will he clarify how his plans will deal with large and mostly rural counties such as Devon? On average, we can look as if we do not need much levelling up, but that hides a large variance, with huge disparities in opportunity within the county.

Michael Gove: My hon. Friend is absolutely right; parts of Devon are relatively economically successful, but there are also areas, not least in South Molton and Barnstaple, in her constituency, where there is real poverty. One thing we are doing with the roll-out of gigabit broadband and better digital connectivity is making sure that businesses in those areas can provide better jobs and greater investment, but we will explore with the local authority in Devon what more we can  do to give local leaders the powers they need to make  a difference.

Mohammad Yasin: The Tories have been in power for 12 years, so does the Secretary of State agree that these vague plans to raise school standards in a third of local authority areas, including Bedford borough, is an admission of unforgivable failure and that any promised investment will never make up for the cuts started when he was Education Secretary, which blighted a generation of our children?

Michael Gove: As the hon. Gentleman mentions my time at Education, let me say that we protected, in real-terms, funding for schools from five to 16; we introduced a pupil premium, which meant that £250 million of additional funding was targeted on the poorest; and in Bedford we opened Bedford Free School, an outstanding school that brought opportunity to disadvantaged children in his constituency. What did the Labour party in Bedford do? It fought it every step of the way. So if he wants opportunity for people in Bedford, he should come to this side of the House, because we are the real crusaders.

Andrew Mitchell: May I urge my right hon. Friend not to be downcast by the negativity of those on the Opposition Benches, but to be uplifted by the support he is receiving for his statement today from those on the Government Benches? In the west midlands, we are particularly pleased about the innovation accelerators and the smart city region programme, which can both be really effective through the galvanisation of the private sector. I am also pleased about the brownfield remediation money, which will stop the iniquitous building of houses on the green belt. May I say that we are awaiting transport money desperately needed for the royal town’s centre plans, which are being driven forward by the determination and vision of the Conservative-led Royal Sutton Coldfield Town Council?

Michael Gove: My right hon. Friend is absolutely right on that. I know that he was instrumental in the success of Andy Street’s election as Mayor of the West Midlands Combined Authority, and Andy has shown what a pro-business, pro-free market Conservative Mayor can do. My right hon. Friend is absolutely right to say that the innovation accelerator in the west midlands will be a way of harnessing all of the talent in his constituency and beyond. I listened carefully to his plea for better transport to the royal borough of Sutton Coldfield. In my view, the quicker people can get to Sutton Coldfield, the better it is for everyone. It is a beautiful royal borough with a fantastic Member of Parliament.

Deidre Brock: I note the intention to pilot an innovation accelerator in Glasgow. It is to be led by the Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy, the Scotland Office and other UK Government Departments, from the Department for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities to the Department for International Trade, but no mention is made of the Scottish Government. Can he tell me what consultation there has been with the Scottish Government on the proposal?

Michael Gove: Yes. I talked to the First Minister about it last night.

Bob Blackman: My right hon. Friend will be aware that, despite the regeneration programmes in London over the past 30 years, the  deprived wards in London are the same ones as they were 30 years ago. Will he assure the House that this will not be used as a reason to deprive London of money, despite the inaction of the do-nothing Mayor at the moment, but that it will be new investment in the north, midlands and across the UK?

Michael Gove: Yes, my hon. Friend is absolutely right; levelling up is not about dampening down the success of London or overlooking the needs of disadvantaged communities in London. It is striking that when my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister was Mayor of London the gaps in life expectancy and health outcomes between the wealthiest and the poorest parts of London narrowed. He was a one nation Mayor and he is a one nation Prime Minister.

Kim Leadbeater: I thank the Secretary of State for meeting me recently to discuss this subject. Sadly, it was a virtual meeting so we were unable to share a packet of Fox’s biscuits together—they come from my constituency. After 12 long years, I welcome any announcement that could result in much-needed, long overdue investment in the towns and villages in Batley and Spen. Does he agree that when it comes to levelling up, it is the reality on the ground that matters and the real-world, tangible differences it makes to communities? With that in mind, will he confirm that he will accept my invitation to come to Batley and Spen, so that I can show him at first hand not only the challenges we face, but the unique opportunities that levelling-up funding could provide?

Michael Gove: First, we have set out clear missions, but the hon. Lady is absolutely right to say that we need to deliver on them. We want to be held to account for that delivery and it needs to be concrete. Secondly, she has been a great champion for community organisations and their capacity to bring people together. A new approach is outlined in the levelling-up White Paper on just that, which is inspired by her work and that of my hon. Friend the Member for Devizes (Danny Kruger), so of course I will accept.

David Morris: Eden Project North gained planning permission on Monday. Five long years, but we got there in the end. I will put it bluntly: how can my right hon. Friend help Eden Project North? The sooner he helps me, the sooner I will shut up about it and the sooner I can get on to the next project in my constituency.

Michael Gove: Eden Project North has two brilliant advocates: my hon. Friend and the Prime Minister. I know I will not be long in this job if I do not deliver for both of them.

Ian Lavery: The levelling-up programme should not just be about shiny infrastructure projects. It should be about real people and life opportunities. Life expectancy is not addressed in this hefty document. Life expectancy in Windlesham in the Secretary of State’s constituency is 86.7 years; in parts of my constituency it is 72.5 years. That is staggering and grotesque. What will he do about that?

Michael Gove: I completely agree with the hon. Gentleman that it is staggering and grotesque. One of the things we need to do is learn from Professor Michael  Marmot and others about the drivers of health inequalities. I know that, in many cases, people such as the hon. Gentleman who worked in mining or heavy industry, even though it is a proud and amazing manufacturing sector, sometimes bear long-term health scars. We need to do more, and I look forward to working with him and others to address it.

Derek Thomas: It is brilliant news that small and medium-sized builders will get support to build 42,000 homes. Will the Secretary of State meet me and my Cornish colleagues to make sure those homes are retained by people who live in Cornwall?

Michael Gove: Yes, absolutely.

Chi Onwurah: The recording that emerged today of the Secretary of State talking of “dirty, toothless northerners” certainly deserves an apology, but is today’s statement not a continuation of that abuse? Having taken away £500, on average, from everyone in the north-east, we get little pots of recycled money and ambitions such as:
“By 2030, local public transport…will be significantly closer to the standards of London”.
That is eight years not even to catch up with London buses. What kind of ambition is that?

Michael Gove: Speaking as an Aberdonian and as someone who was born further north than most people in this House, I can say there is no one more northern than me. Thinking particularly about this situation, one of the things we outlined in the White Paper is our proposal to ensure that the current North of Tyne Mayor can work with local authorities in the south of Tyneside, Gateshead and elsewhere to achieve precisely the goals that the hon. Lady wants.

Sara Britcliffe: I grew up in a northern industrial town, and I politely say to the hon. Member for Wigan (Lisa Nandy) that a plan for levelling-up opportunity is exactly what such towns need. Delivery is key, so will the Secretary of State make sure that we get shovels in the ground?

Michael Gove: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. She grew up in Accrington. Members like her, who know what it is to grow up in an industrial town, know what happened in the past, including under Labour, and know that we need investment, business and ambition. That is what this White Paper has.

Stephen Kinnock: The all-party parliamentary group on the UK shared prosperity fund, which I am proud to chair, has been calling on the Government to ensure that not a single penny is lost in the transition from the European structural funds to the SPF, but calculations by the Welsh Government confirm that the SPF will leave the UK close to £1 billion worse off and that Wales will get £750 million less. Will the Secretary of State meet our APPG to discuss how to ensure the nations and regions of our country do not get short-changed?

Michael Gove: That is a fair point. On this occasion, I think that the calculations made by the Welsh Finance Minister, Vaughan Gething, for whom I have great  respect, were wrong, but I would be more than happy to meet the hon. Gentleman and others to take them through our approach.

Luke Evans: Levelling up in Bosworth uniquely looks like millions of pounds into Hinckley Academy, £28 million into Leicestershire broadband and £19.9 million into Twycross Zoo. On page 235 of the White Paper, the next level of levelling up is about the county deal, which is drastically needed by the seven MPs in Leicestershire. Will my right hon. Friend meet all seven of us to make sure that we can rocket fuel that by autumn 2022?

Michael Gove: We absolutely will. I commend my hon. Friend for getting to page 235 of the White Paper so quickly.

Clive Efford: When he was Mayor of London, the Prime Minister commissioned a report that asked for more tax-raising powers and the ability to borrow money for London, but that was rejected. The current Mayor is asking for powers to be able to raise money. If London cannot pay for its transport system, which city in this country can? Why are the Government standing in the way of devolution in London? Is the Secretary of State not just cherry-picking schemes across the country and standing in the way of devolution in the same way that he is in London?

Michael Gove: No. There are two things. The first is that I had a good conversation with the Mayor of London yesterday. I stressed to him that we wanted to explore what potential there was for further devolution across all the mayoral combined authorities. There is a party political argument about the management of Transport for London which I will not revisit now, but simply saying that greater borrowing powers would solve all of London’s transport problems does not do justice to the scale of the issue. To be fair to the Mayor of London, I want to work with him in order to make sure that we can solve those problems.

Martin Vickers: I thank my right hon. Friend for his visit to my constituency on Monday. He will recall the excellent fish and chip lunch that we shared. During that lunch, a number of points were raised. First, can he ensure that LNER delivers on its promise of a direct rail service from Cleethorpes through to King’s Cross? Urgent decision making was also referred to, and the way to help delivery of that would be to create a level 3 authority in the county.

Rosie Winterton: One question at a time.

Michael Gove: Those are very good points. We do need a direct train service to Grimsby and Cleethorpes. My hon. Friend’s other points are absolutely well made and well understood. I enjoyed the delicious fish and chips from Papa’s, with a side order of what I understand is called guacamole à la Mandelson.

Kate Green: I was interested to read about the national youth guarantee. A total of £500 million was announced by the Government in 2019 for the youth investment fund, but the first £10 million of capital funding was opened to bids only just a few weeks ago. Will the Secretary of State kindly  urge his colleagues to turbo-charge the delivery of that funding so that our young people do not have to wait until 2025 to enjoy better opportunities and facilities?

Michael Gove: That is a very fair point and I will look into it.

Alun Cairns: I congratulate my right hon. Friend on taking back control and on his strategic approach to levelling up across the whole of the United Kingdom. This contrasts so favourably with the billions of pounds of European aid that the Labour party wasted in Wales over the past 20 years. May I ask him to pay particular attention to those areas in Wales that did not qualify for European aid, so that we can be levelled up at last?

Michael Gove: My right hon. Friend is absolutely right. We need to make sure that the additional funding available through the UK shared prosperity fund goes to all the communities in Wales that deserve it.

Rebecca Long-Bailey: The Secretary of State bursts with enthusiasm today, yet his plans are not bursting with much new funding. Even the director of the Northern Powerhouse Partnership says that
“the government is planning to spend less on English regional development than was the case under Theresa May or David Cameron.”
It said that true levelling up would need long-term financial backing from the Chancellor. When will we see that?

Michael Gove: We saw it at the spending review.

Jason McCartney: I really welcome this statement. I welcome that Kirklees will be an education investment area. I welcome that Kirklees will get extra support from the high streets task force, but can we make sure that it is not just the swanky cities of the north like Leeds that are levelled up, but it is also our towns such as Huddersfield, Milnsbridge, Holmfirth, Marsden, Slaithwaite and, of course, Doncaster, Madam Deputy Speaker?

Michael Gove: I could not agree more. I have nothing against Leeds; I love Leeds. [Hon. Members: “That’s not what it says about you!”] My name is hymned by children in Leeds streets, I know. The serious point is that there is cultural investment in Kirklees, not least in Huddersfield, and my hon. Friend is absolutely right that more needs to be done for all the authorities in Kirklees and for the towns in West Yorkshire surrounding them.

Imran Hussain: The stark reality is that someone who lives in the inner city of Bradford is likely to live 10 years less than someone who lives in an affluent suburb. Although I accept that the Government plan commits to raising health and life expectancy, it does not go far enough. One of the issues is the top-down approach. I sincerely and constructively ask the Secretary of State to meet me to discuss transformative new proposals that are being put forward by local grassroots community groups in Bradford to change health inequalities and to address the real issue.

Michael Gove: I will make sure that, if it is not me, another Minister definitely talks to the hon. Gentleman.

Gary Sambrook: I remember as a schoolboy watching Tony Blair and Gordon Brown fly into Birmingham by helicopter to say that every job at Longbridge would be saved. Seventeen years on, it is this Conservative Government who have given West Works six million quid to provide the new jobs that are needed locally. This Conservative Government will be helping St Modwen and other developers to make sure that we build on the land at Lowhill Lane. Will the Secretary of State visit, with me, the biggest levelling-up project in Birmingham and the west midlands?

Michael Gove: The west midlands is succeeding at last under Conservative leadership, such as that provided by Andy Street and my hon. Friend.

Rosie Winterton: Order. We really cannot have long preambles: one question to the Secretary of State, please.

Emma Lewell-Buck: In South Shields: freeport bid—rejected; levelling-up bid—rejected; towns fund bid—rejected; transport funding—rejected. We have suffered Tory cuts of nearly £200 million. Tinkering with our governance alone will not change a thing. The Secretary of State once praised policies that, in his own words, meant
“the happy south stamps over the cruel, dirty, toothless face of the northerner”.
Is he proud that he has managed to do exactly the same again today?

Michael Gove: I think that South Shields does deserve better. That is why we are going to work with the North of Tyne Mayor to ensure that across Tyneside, both north and south, we have the right structures and the right investment in place.

John Stevenson: In Cumbria, if there is support for a mayoral model but some opposition to it, will the Government take statutory powers to ensure that the mayoral model prevails?

Michael Gove: Yes, and I cannot think of a better mayor for Cumbria than my hon. Friend.

Ben Lake: Six of the nine areas in Ceredigion rank in the bottom 10% of areas across the UK for decent broadband coverage. How will the hardest-to-reach premises, such as those in Ceredigion, be targeted for public investment?

Michael Gove: I will work with the hon. Gentleman and, indeed, with the Senedd and the Welsh Government to ensure that we can roll out broadband. I recognise that lots of small businesses in Ceredigion—in Aberystwyth and all the way up to Machynlleth—need that support, and we will be there for them.

Bob Neill: I refer the House to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests. Following this excellent document and having recognised the value of cultural investment,  will my right hon. Friend meet me to discuss some of the exciting ways in which some of our major arts organisations, including those based in London, are prepared to participate in the levelling up throughout the whole country?

Michael Gove: I absolutely will. My hon. Friend is a keen champion of arts, culture and, in particular, music. The institutions that we have in London are fantastic, but they can play a real part with institutions such as the Hallé and others in the north to improve cultural opportunities for all.

Paul Blomfield: Since 2010, Conservative Governments have cut £2.1 billion in funds to Sheffield City Council. Our annual grant is £288 million lower in real terms. Today, the Secretary of State announced £13 million and described it as transformational. If that is transformational, how would he describe the money we have lost? When will he restore it?

Michael Gove: I do not think that I described it as transformational; I think it was the Labour Mayor of South Yorkshire, who said that it had the “potential” to be transformational. I am looking forward to working with the Labour Mayor of South Yorkshire in order to achieve that transformation.

Mary Robinson: I welcome this White Paper and the multi-billion pound investments in brownfield regeneration, connectivity, research and development, and especially the innovation accelerators, which in Cheadle and across Greater Manchester will make a real difference to all those businesses that want the extra help to start up. Will my right hon. Friend say whether, as well as civic leaders, business leaders will be part of the design of the accelerator?

Michael Gove: Absolutely. I had the opportunity, thanks to my hon. Friend, to visit Cheadle and indeed other parts of Greater Manchester just a fortnight ago. Thanks to her advocacy, I was also able to meet some of the business figures most interested in making sure that innovation in Manchester succeeds, and I want to continue to work with them because the business voice is critical to the success of the north-west.

Patrick Grady: How are people in Scotland supposed to see the UK Government making spending and policy decisions in areas that are supposed to be devolved as anything other than a power grab?

Michael Gove: The hon. Gentleman is a graduate of Glasgow University—

Patrick Grady: Strathclyde!

Michael Gove: Oh, the hon. Gentleman did not make it to Glasgow—never mind. He is a graduate of another great university in Glasgow. We are investing money in that university to recognise that the constituency he represents has incredibly talented young people, and we want them to succeed, just like him.

Andy Carter: I thank the Secretary of State for his statement and welcome the radical shake-up contained in this White Paper. My ears pricked up when I heard him mention Warrington and funding for better public transport—120 new electric buses for Warrington. Thank you, Secretary of State. Does he agree that, if we want to get people into jobs, we have to provide the public transport to help them get there?

Michael Gove: That is absolutely, totally, 100% correct, and it is my right hon. Friend the Transport Secretary who deserves all the credit.

Ruth Cadbury: Hounslow is in the second most prosperous UK sub-region by gross value added, but thanks to 11 years of Government policies, 40% of Hounslow’s children live in poverty, so when will levelling up address inequality within communities as well as between them?

Michael Gove: That is a very important point. What we need to do is to make sure that we work with the Mayor of London, but also with Hounslow Borough Council and those who are involved in providing opportunity for young people in the communities the hon. Member represents, to give them a better chance in the future.

Holly Mumby-Croft: We are under way, levelling up in Scunthorpe and we are unashamedly ambitious to do more. Can I offer a very strong invitation to my right hon. Friend to come to visit us, so we can show him what we are doing and have a chat about future opportunities?

Michael Gove: Absolutely. I enjoyed visiting Grimsby and Cleethorpes earlier this week. North-east Lincolnshire is great. It is time I visited north Lincolnshire as well.

Mick Whitley: Wirral Council is facing a budget black hole of more than £20 million. I have pledged to do whatever I can to save the fantastic public services that so many of my constituents rely on, and I am grateful to the Secretary of State for kindly agreeing to meet me and my hon. Friends from the Wirral to discuss this very serious situation. Levelling up will remain nothing more than an empty catchphrase as long as local authorities such as mine are forced to consider closing libraries, leisure centres and swimming pools. Ahead of our meeting, can he tell me if he thinks this White Paper comes anywhere close to undoing the enormous damage done to local authorities’ finances since 2010?

Michael Gove: I am looking forward to a meeting. I recognise that there are real issues in the Wirral, which  I hope we can work together to resolve.

Bob Seely: I thank the Secretary of State so much for taking forward the islands forum idea. Sadly, I did not get beyond page 132, because that is where it was. Can he assure us that the forum will give a voice to islands such as the Isle of Wight to be part of the prosperity agenda in education and high-quality jobs, as well as in landscape and seascape protection for some of the most unique and beautiful parts of Great Britain?

Michael Gove: Absolutely. The islands forum is an idea developed following conversations with and advocacy from my hon. Friend. We recognise absolutely, as he has consistently pointed out, that island communities face particular challenges as a result of distance and dispersal, and we need to tackle them.

Margaret Greenwood: I welcome the Secretary of State’s commitment to meet me, my hon. Friend the Member for Birkenhead (Mick Whitley) and other Wirral MPs. Woodchurch leisure centre and swimming pool and libraries in Greasby, Irby, Hoylake, Pensby and Woodchurch are all under threat of closure because of Wirral Council having to make up to £27 million of savings as a direct result of brutal cuts from Conservative Governments since 2010, so can the Secretary of State make sure that he provides emergency funding to save these vital services?

Michael Gove: I look forward to discussing that at a meeting with the hon. Lady and the hon. Member for Birkenhead (Mick Whitley).

Robert Largan: I welcome the enhanced bus service on its way to Derbyshire, the Derbyshire county deal and the fact that Derbyshire is going to be an education investment area, on top of the future high streets £10 million for Buxton, the £137 million for the Hope Valley upgrade and the £228 million Mottram bypass, but there is a democratic deficit I am worried about. The Mayor of Greater Manchester takes decisions that have a huge impact on High Peak, but we have no say in them. What can we say to having more collaborative working, ensuring that levelling up works for everyone across regional boundaries?

Michael Gove: My hon. Friend makes an important point. High Peak contains some of the most beautiful and important parts of Derbyshire, but it is also part of the greater economic area around Greater Manchester. I therefore want to ensure, with him, Derbyshire leaders and the Mayor of Greater Manchester, that we are working together in the interests of my hon. Friend’s constituents.

Drew Hendry: With this scheme, the highlands are set to lose out on tens of millions of pounds compared with EU funding. The highlands have been placed in category 3—the lowest of all the categories—and face significant financial challenges in accessing the cash. This is the largest local authority area in the UK. Why are the highlands so low on this Government’s agenda?

Michael Gove: The highlands are at the top of the Government’s agenda. The UK shared prosperity funding that we are guaranteeing will ensure that highland communities get the investment that they need, but more than that, the roll-out of 4G and 5G will also help highland communities. It is the case that the Scottish Government have not necessarily rolled out broadband as quickly as those communities would want, as colleagues such as Donald Cameron in the Scottish Parliament have pointed out. I want to work with him and the Scottish Government to serve the people whom he represents.

Rob Butler: I know that my right hon. Friend believes that local leaders know best when it comes to regenerating local areas, and when it comes to Buckinghamshire, he is absolutely right. Buckinghamshire Council, which effectively created the concept of county deals, is very disappointed not to be one of the first nine, so will he tell me how soon the second tranche will be announced, because Bucks is poised to not just negotiate, but spring into action?

Michael Gove: I absolutely appreciate that and Martin Tett, the leader of Buckinghamshire Council, is a first-rate local authority leader. I cannot give a timescale at the moment. We want to make sure that the first nine county deals are successful, but we want to move on rapidly thereafter to expand the scope of county deals.

Justin Madders: My constituency is repeatedly overlooked for funding, whether that is for the future high streets fund, the towns fund or the levelling-up fund, but at the same time, bids from other areas that score lower on the Government’s criteria are successful. The Secretary of State will appreciate that there is little trust that the White Paper will deliver anything for my community, so what assurances can he give me that any future bids for funding will be judged fairly and that my constituency will finally get the cash that it deserves?

Michael Gove: There are clear and objective criteria for funding, but it is also the case that some local authorities may need help with building capacity to make sure that their bids are as effective as possible. I extend the resources of the Department to the hon. Gentleman and his local authority to make sure that they put in the best bids possible.

Jane Hunt: This is a plan that provides opportunity and growth throughout every part of our country; I am looking particularly at mission 6, on skills training. Does my right hon. Friend agree that it is the Conservatives who really help people to get on in life?

Michael Gove: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. Of course, she represents a constituency with one of the finest universities in the country and she recognises the vital importance of higher education, further education and schools working together to extend opportunity.

Stephen Farry: Speaking as a former Minister in Northern Ireland, our Executive had far more control over the allocation of structural funds when we were in the EU than they do over levelling-up funds today. Does the Secretary of State recognise that the UK’s approach to levelling-up funds, particularly the shared prosperity fund, means only reduced resource for Northern Ireland and risks duplication and waste, as well as competition in the shared public space over the scarce resources that remain?

Michael Gove: I respectfully disagree, but I recognise that the hon. Gentleman has a wealth of experience in this area, so I want to work with him, his party and his party’s Minister in the Executive to make sure that we minimise bureaucracy and maximise effectiveness.

Mike Wood: The west midlands has some world-leading, innovative companies as well as universities and research institutions doing ground-breaking research, but public research and development investment in the west midlands has been low compared with other areas, even though for every £1 of Government investment, we have seen a private sector return of £4. How will the innovation accelerator help to close that gap?

Michael Gove: My hon. Friend brilliantly encapsulates the challenge. The innovation accelerator will bring together representatives from the private sector—from business—as well as those in the outstanding universities that, as he rightly points out, are a feature of the west midlands in order to ensure that its manufacturing strengths can be leveraged more effectively. I look forward to working with him and others to achieve that.

Rachael Maskell: The broken housing market is the bigger driver of inequality across York, with the boom in second homes and holiday lets. Therefore, the aspiration of the people of York is being denied. Rather than throwing us dead cats with the House of Lords, will the Secretary of State throw us a proper agenda to address the housing crisis in York?

Michael Gove: Three important points. First, the hon. Lady is absolutely right that there are things we need to do to tackle the housing market, in particular the second homes issue. It is complex, as she understands, but there is more that needs to be done. Secondly, I hope she will support the proposed mayoral deal for York and North Yorkshire, which I think will give some of the powers necessary to deal with the problems she mentioned. Thirdly, the House of Lords in York, or for that matter Glasgow, would be a great thing.

Stephen Metcalfe: Can my right hon. Friend confirm that, as we look forward, levelling up applies to need not geography, and that the most deprived areas in Basildon and Thurrock will see the benefits to allow south Essex to reach its full potential?

Michael Gove: Yes, absolutely. We need to target need. We need to recognise that, in the south-east, London, Oxford and Cambridge are the three crown jewels generating wealth, but that there are communities that do not share in that prosperity. I should point out that one of the poorest areas, if not the poorest, in the country is Jaywick in the borough of Tendring, represented by my hon. Friend the Member for Clacton (Giles Watling). It is critically important that we work with local government leaders to address poverty wherever we find it.

Jonathan Edwards: If the British Government were serious about levelling up and using Brexit freedoms, as they call them, would they not be devolving key economic levers to Wales, such as powers over VAT and corporation tax?

Michael Gove: That is an interesting idea, but I am not sure the hon. Gentleman’s friends in Plaid Cymru would necessarily take an approach to VAT and corporation  tax that was as pro-enterprise as I would like. The key thing is that we need to make sure the UK remains competitive overall. His constituents in Carmarthen East and Dinefwr will benefit thereby.

Damien Moore: I welcome my right hon. Friend’s statement today and thank him for Southport’s £38.5 million town deal. But will he ensure that jobs, growth and investment are at the heart of his levelling-up agenda and that vanity projects, such as those proposed under the active travel scheme, do not supersede them?

Michael Gove: My hon. Friend makes a very important point. We of course want to encourage cycling and walking, but we need to balance that with the need to ensure that thriving economic areas such as Southport, which are at the heart of the success of not just Sefton but Greater Merseyside and Lancashire, are given the opportunity to provide the economic growth for which he has been such an effective champion.

Beth Winter: The Secretary of State talks about shifting power and resources to communities. I think he made one mention of Wales. In the case of Wales, the opposite is true. These proposals ride roughshod over devolution, override our democratically elected Government and short-change us to the tune of £1 billion by 2024. The truth of the matter is that the proposals will result in further hardship and poverty for my constituents in Cynon Valley and throughout the UK. So I implore the Secretary of State to listen to my constituents and the people of this country, respect devolution and restore the missing £1 billion to Wales.

Michael Gove: I respectfully disagree. When I was recently visiting Merthyr and Pontypridd, I found that actually the investment we are making through the levelling-up fund was welcomed by Labour and independent councillors in south Wales. Obviously, we need to do more not just for south Wales but for north Wales, which is why there is a commitment in the White Paper to ensure more civil service jobs move to Wrexham.

Nigel Mills: I, too, welcome the investment in education and public transport in Derbyshire. While my right hon. Friend is negotiating county deals in Nottinghamshire and Derbyshire, will he perhaps give a little shove towards full proper devolution and a mayor for the east midlands?

Michael Gove: That is definitely worth exploring. I recognise that there are particular geographical—what is the word?—issues across the east midlands, but I think the success of Andy Street in the west midlands has meant that more options are opening.

Paula Barker: Since 2010, £465 million has been cut from Liverpool City Council, with £34 million in this coming financial year. Local government staff have had their pay cut by 20% since 2010 in real terms. Will the Secretary of State, if he is genuinely committed to tackling and reversing inequality, tell us when local government workers can expect a 50% pay increase like the commissioners in Liverpool City Council, or will he agree to meet me and my colleagues to look at that eye-watering decision?

Michael Gove: Liverpool City Council has had a troubled past recently, but it has a new leadership committed to change and reform. The commissioners are a vital part of that process. I am more than happy to talk to the hon. Lady and other Liverpool MPs—[Interruption.] If we did not have those commissioners there, we would not be dealing with the legacy of corruption and incompetence, and whether the hon. Member for Wigan (Lisa Nandy) wants to defend that past or be part of a brighter future is her choice.

James Wild: Levelling up is as relevant in North West Norfolk as it is in the north, so I welcome the invitation for Norfolk to negotiate a county deal, which I hope will see more local powers and resources. Education is at the heart of spreading opportunity, so will my right hon. Friend confirm that Norfolk’s selection as one of the new education investment areas will mean extra support and dedicated action to give more young people a good start in life?

Michael Gove: Absolutely. For example, we want to ensure that the sort of model used at Sir Isaac Newton Sixth Form in Norwich, which provides an excellent opportunity for children denied it in the past, is spread across Norfolk as part of our EIA initiative.

Gerald Jones: Wales is set to be denied £4.6 billion as a result of the Government classifying HS2 as an England and Wales project, despite the Treasury finding that Wales would lose out on £150 million per annum as a resultof HS2. That does not sound like levelling up to me. Does the Secretary of State agree?

Michael Gove: I do not think Wales loses out as a result of HS2. I think north Wales in particular benefits significantly because of increased connectivity. However, I respectfully say to the hon. Gentleman that the Labour  party needs to sort out its position on HS2. When the Leader of the Opposition was campaigning to be elected in Camden, he said that one of top priorities was to oppose HS2, and then when we brought forward proposals to extend HS2, he criticised them. There is an inconsistency in the Labour party’s position on infrastructure investment. I know that the hon. Gentleman’s heart is in the right place, but the Labour party’s HS2 policy currently is not.

Felicity Buchan: I represent a London constituency with two of the most deprived wards in the entire country. Does my right hon. Friend agree that levelling up is also about deprived areas in our inner cities? Will he back my campaign for step-free access at Ladbroke Grove tube station?

Michael Gove: Absolutely. My hon. Friend is right. One of the things that the White Paper brings out in a look at the borough of Kensington is the fact that it contains both some of the wealthiest areas in the country and some of the poorest. Without wanting to stray into another important area—although it is important to refer to it—the suffering of Grenfell families and the community around them is a reminder of our need to ensure that opportunity and security are extended to those who have suffered in the past, and they have had no better champion in this House than my hon. Friend.

Several hon. Members: rose—

Rosie Winterton: Order. I am afraid that we must bring this statement to an end. I am sorry that we have not been able to get everyone in, but we did manage about 70 in the hour and a half that was allocated. We have more business to move on to, but I thank the Secretary of State for his statement.

Points of Order

Daisy Cooper: On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. In the past 36 hours, the National Audit Office has reported that the Department of Health and Social Care spent £1.3 billion last year that was not signed off by the Treasury and also incurred £8.7 billion of losses on personal protective equipment. That is a jaw-dropping £10 billion. The report also states:
“The Department was not able to manage adequately some of the elevated risks, resulting in significant losses for the taxpayer.”
Alarmingly, it also says that the Department has still not
“re-established effective controls in all areas.”
Although an Opposition day debate was held yesterday on fraud and Government waste, the NAO report was not released in time for proper questions to be put to the Government. Madam Deputy Speaker, have the Government advised you of whether they intend to make a statement on those damning findings? If not, how may we as Members hold Ministers to account for the waste?

Eleanor Laing: I thank the hon. Lady for her point of order. She knows that the Chair has no power over bringing Ministers to the Chamber, but Members have the power to use the proper means whereby that can be done, such as if a question is considered to be urgent. As the hon. Lady said, there was an extensive debate on this matter yesterday, when the very matters that she refers to were aired fully here in the Chamber, but I appreciate what she says about the timing of the publication of the National Audit Office report. I draw to her attention the ways in which she can ask for advice from the Table Office as to how she might compel a Minister to come to this House. I have at this moment, probably in view of the fact that the debate occurred yesterday, not received any notice of an intention from the Government to bring this matter to the House again in the near future.

Justin Madders: On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. Are you aware of a letter from the UK Statistics Authority to the director of data science at 10 Downing Street regarding claims made by the Prime Minister that there are more people in work now than there were at the start of the pandemic? In the letter, the UKSA points out that that claim is incorrect and there are in fact 600,000 fewer people in work than at the start of the pandemic.
I am mindful of what was said by Mr Speaker earlier and that accusations of deceit do not enhance the reputation of this place, but this claim has been made by the Prime Minister on 24 November, 15 December, 5 January, 12 January, 19 January and again today. I believe that the public have a right to expect what is said by the Prime Minister at the Dispatch Box to be truthful and accurate. Have you received any notification of an intention from the Prime Minister to correct the record?

Eleanor Laing: I thank the hon. Gentleman for his point of order and for having given me notice of his intention to raise it. As Mr Speaker has said many times from the Chair, and as those of us who occupy the Chair have repeated, the veracity or otherwise of statistics  and the interpretation of statistics is the very stuff of political discourse and debate. The hon. Gentleman is right to ask the questions, and I am quite sure that he will find a way of asking those questions directly of Ministers. He is absolutely right to say that it is important that statements made in this House are absolutely correct and true, and if an error has been made inadvertently, I am sure that those on the Treasury Bench will note the points made by the hon. Gentleman, and his request for the matter to be looked at again will be referred to the appropriate Minister. There is of course a system for correcting errors and mis-statements, which Ministers and others can use if necessary.

Peter Grant: On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker—for reasons that will become clear, I was not able to give you advance notice of this—it is well accepted that it is at the discretion of the Chair as to how long they run an individual item of business, but that can sometimes cause difficulties for hon. and right hon. Members who want to take part in the following item of business and have to judge when they need to be in the Chamber. Colleagues can be left with the choice of potentially spending a long time in the Chamber at the previous business and so missing important business such as Select Committee sessions, or alternatively running the risk of being late for the start of the next item of business because they were in Select Committee.
Are you aware, Madam Deputy Speaker, of any consideration being giving to amending the practice of the House, possibly by following the example of other Parliaments, so that the timings of important items of business can be known with a bit more predictability? That would allow Members, who have all got very busy diaries, to plan out their working day with a bit more certainty than they can just now.

Eleanor Laing: I thank the hon. Gentleman for his point of order. There is no need for him to apologise for not having warned me of his intention to raise it, because I have heard that question put on many occasions over several decades. The fact is, and it would be good for people who pay attention to our proceedings to know this, that Members of Parliament have in one day to undertake a huge variety of different duties: attending Committees, asking questions, taking part in debates, meeting constituents and doing a whole range of other duties that we all do diligently.
I am the first to agree with the hon. Gentleman that it can be very difficult to work out a reasonable balance for the working day and manage to fit in, in a timeous way, everything that has to be done, and I can only say to him that one person’s long statement is another person’s late-starting debate. We are in the middle of exactly that situation at this very moment, which is probably why the hon. Gentleman has raised the matter now. The previous statement could have lasted for another half-hour, but my fellow Madam Deputy Speaker decided that sufficient Members had taken part, and the occupant of the Chair has to balance one item of business against another.
The hon. Gentleman makes a plea that I think will be echoed by most of our colleagues, and I can only say to him that Mr Speaker and the Deputy Speakers do understand this. If he seriously wishes that the matter be considered, I suggest he raise it with the Chairman of  the Procedure Committee; it would not be unreasonable for it to be raised, but I would be very surprised indeed if the problem were to be solved.

Bills Presented

Air Pollution (Local Authority Audits) Bill

Presentation and First Reading (Standing Order No. 57)
Mr Barry Sheerman, supported by Caroline Lucas, Geraint Davies, Luke Pollard, Helen Hayes, Christine Jardine, Neil Parish and Dame Angela Eagle, presented a Bill to make provision for local authorities to conduct annual audits of air pollution in their area and associated emissions by public and private entities; to require those local authorities to prepare reports on those audits; to require the Secretary of State to report annually to Parliament on those audit reports; and for connected purposes.
Bill read the First time; to be read a Second time on Friday 18 March, and to be printed (Bill 244).

Ministerial Disclosure (Fixed Penalty Notices) Bill

Presentation and First Reading (Standing Order No. 57)
Mr Alistair Carmichael, supported by Ed Davey, Daisy Cooper, Wendy Chamberlain, Tim Farron, Layla Moran, Christine Jardine, Jamie Stone, Wera Hobhouse, Sarah Olney, Munira Wilson and Sarah Green, presented a Bill to require Ministers of the Crown to disclose that they have been issued with a fixed penalty notice; and for connected purposes.
Bill read the First time; to be read a Second time on Friday 25 February, and to be printed (Bill 245).

Carbon Emissions (Buildings)

Motion for leave to bring in a Bill (Standing Order No. 23)

Duncan Baker: I beg to move,
That leave be given to bring in a Bill to require the whole-life carbon emissions of buildings to be reported; to set limits on embodied carbon emissions in the construction of buildings; and for connected purposes.
This will be known as the part Z regulation.
This country has a long, proud history of creating buildings and infrastructure that have enabled Britain to develop and evolve at a rate envied by the rest of the world, but we should reflect on the fact that during that time it is not just Britain that has developed and evolved, but construction itself. Indeed, construction has come a long way since the industrial revolution caused our towns, infrastructure and industry to burgeon. Back then, it was an industry based on judgment, precedent and trial and error, whereas in modern Britain construction is as much an art and a science, led by our engineers and builders, who are world-renowned for their expertise and experience. However, climate change means that it is time for construction to evolve again: as we go about ensuring the UK’s role as a global leader in decarbonisation we must discuss the decarbonising of construction.
Every year, our buildings and construction are responsible for the emission of 150 million tonnes of carbon—greenhouse gases—which is nearly a quarter of our country’s total carbon footprint. Two thirds of those emissions—yes, the majority—are due to the lighting, power, water, heating and cooling of buildings, or what we call operational carbon, and I am proud that this Government have taken bold steps to ensure that those emissions will reduce as part of our net zero strategy. By 2025 all new homes will be installing low-carbon alternatives to gas boilers, for instance, and by 2035 this country will have decarbonised the electricity network completely. As such, by 2035 we can expect that the emissions related to those services will have fallen to an almost negligible amount. Fantastic! However, that leaves a big piece of the pie—the other third. Where do those remaining emissions come from, and what plan do we have to deal with them?
The other third comes from construction itself, and it is responsible for 40 million to 50 million tonnes of greenhouse gas emissions each year. For perspective, that is more than the entirety of the UK’s aviation plus shipping. Those 50 million tonnes of carbon emissions are due to the construction, upkeep, refurbishment and demolition of new and existing buildings and infrastructure. Collectively, that is known as embodied carbon, so called because the materials that we build are the physical embodiment of such greenhouse gas emissions. Most embodied carbon emissions are in the construction of the building itself. For a typical new build constructed today, embodied carbon accounts for half the total emissions that the building will be responsible for over its entire lifetime. In some buildings, that same amount is released before the building is even occupied.
Currently, those embodied carbon emissions are completely unregulated. The law places no restriction whatsoever on how much embodied carbon can be emitted when we construct a building. In fact, the 50 million tonnes of carbon due to construction have hardly changed for  years—perhaps only altering slightly during a recession. Now, I am not a builder or a developer, but if I was and I desired to build a building that was gratuitously tall or complicated and I said to my architect, “Put as much concrete as you like into the floor slabs”—subject to planning permission, of course—that would be my choice, and there would be no accounting for the carbon impact of those decisions. We are in the middle of a climate emergency, and yet the embodied carbon of our buildings and infrastructure is completely unregulated—there is no requirement by law to do anything about that 50 million tonnes of carbon.
Let us be clear: that is not to say that no one in the construction industry is looking at how to reduce embodied carbon—far from it. I will come back to that in just a moment. However, the regulation and legislation is not there to support such efforts. We are decarbonising our electricity grid and ending our reliance on fossil fuels, but we are leaving ourselves open to a big concrete and steel elephant in the room.
The Climate Change Committee has been advising for four years that embodied carbon needs regulating. During the Environmental Audit Committee’s inquiry into the sustainability of the built environment—I am a part of that inquiry, and I see many Committee colleagues present—the regulation of embodied carbon has come up again and again. Meanwhile, our friends around the world in the Netherlands, Sweden, France, Denmark, Finland, the USA and New Zealand are either moving towards introducing embodied carbon regulation or have already done so. The recent net zero strategy set out the Government’s intention to support action in the construction sector by improving reporting on embodied carbon in buildings and infrastructure with a view to exploring a maximum level for new builds in the future, so the ambition is clearly there.
Unlike some of those other countries, which had to create standards to implement embodied carbon regulation, we already have the tools to do it. We have standards and guidance that cover the assessment of carbon emissions for construction: they have been in use in the industry for nearly five years on a voluntary basis and are seen across more and more construction sites in the UK. So we have the tools; now we need the leadership and the regulation to bring an extra level of clarity and make low carbon a requirement in all construction projects around the UK.
I understand that that cannot happen overnight. Parts of the industry still need to upskill their teams and incorporate existing guidance into their standard ways of working. However, at an appropriate pace, with clear direction and agreed implementation dates from this Government, embodied carbon regulation can unlock the creative potential of our construction industry. We can see now that embodied carbon regulation is needed; we can see that it is aligned with the Government’s aspirations and we understand that we have all the tools we need to get it done.
Finally, let us talk about the impact it will have on our workforce. What about our engineers, architects, planners and builders? Will they have to change how  they design and build the places we call home, the buildings we meet in and the infrastructure that ties us all together? Is such regulation compatible with the industry, and is our industry ready for it? The answer is yes. The industry wants to play its role in fighting climate change—it is calling for it quite loudly now.
In the summer of last year, the construction industry took the proactive move of responding to the Climate Change Committee’s suggestion on its own and producing a proposed building regulation under the name “Part Z”. “Part Z” was drafted by industry experts and shared for comments across the industry. The response was staggering: 120 of the country’s leading developers, clients, contractors, architects, engineers and institutions writing statements calling for the regulation of embodied carbon.
This country’s history is intertwined with the evolution of construction—Robert Stephenson, the Shard, the Gherkin, the channel tunnel, the Forth bridge, even the Palace of Westminster we stand in today—but it is time for construction to evolve again. We can build more sustainably, we can build out of beautiful natural materials, we can retrofit and we can pay attention to all those issues. It is time to stop putting embodied carbon off as a possible future area to explore. It is time now to regulate embodied carbon.
Question put and agreed to.
Ordered,
That Duncan Baker, Jerome Mayhew, Mr Richard Holden, Anthony Browne, Cherilyn Mackrory, Sir Robert Goodwill, Ian Levy, John McNally, Helen Hayes, James Gray, Dr Matthew Offord and Caroline Lucas present the Bill.
Duncan Baker accordingly presented the Bill.
Bill read the First time; to be read a Second time on Friday 18 March, and to be printed (Bill 246).

Finance (No. 2) Bill (Ways and Means) (Freeport Reliefs)

Resolved,
That provision may be made amending sections 45R and 270BNC of the Capital Allowances Act 2001 and paragraph 12 of Schedule 6C to the Finance Act 2003.—(Lucy Frazer.)

Finance (No. 2) Bill (Ways and Means) (Vehicle Excise Duty: Exemption for Cabotage Operations)

Resolved,
That provision may be made conferring a power on the Treasury to make provision for the temporary extension of cabotage rights, as provided by Resolution 41 of the House of 2 November 2021 (Vehicle excise duty (exemption for cabotage operations)), to apply at times after 30 April 2022.—(Lucy Frazer.)

Finance (No. 2) Bill (Ways and Means)

Resolved,
That provision may be made for a new tax to be charged in circumstances where a business for which there is a special administration regime becomes subject to special administration or to other special measures in connection with insolvency.—(Lucy Frazer.)

Finance (No. 2) Bill

Consideration of Bill, as amended in the Committee and the Public Bill Committee

New Clause 1 - Freeport tax site reliefs: provision about regulations

Schedule (Freeport tax site reliefs: provision about regulations) makes provision about powers to vary the circumstances in which certain reliefs are available in relation to freeports.—(Lucy Frazer.)
This new clause and NS1 make provision about powers to make regulations in relation to the circumstances in which certain reliefs are available in relation to freeports.
Brought up, and read the First time.

Lucy Frazer: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.

Eleanor Laing: With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
Government new clause 3—Public interest business protection tax.
New clause 2—Review of impact of section 25 (Tonnage tax)—
‘(1) The Chancellor must review the impact of the changes made by section 25 of this Act (Tonnage tax), and lay a report of that review before the House of Commons, within 12 months of that section coming into force.
(2) The review carried out under subsection (1) must include assessment of the impact of the provisions of that section on—
(a) the training of UK—
(i) cadets and
(ii) ratings, and
(b) the employment of UK—
(i) cadets and
(ii) ratings
by operators of qualifying ships.
(3) The review carried out under subsection (1) must include assessment of the effect of changes to flagging arrangements made by subsections 25(6) and (7).’
This new clause would require the Government to report to the House on the impact of the provisions of clause 25 on the training and employment of UK seafarers.
New clause 4—Reviews of Economic crime (anti-money laundering) levy—
‘(1) The Government must publish a review of the operation of the Economic Crime (Anti-Money Laundering) Levy by 31 December 2027.
(2) The Government must publish on 31 December each year until the establishment of a register of beneficial owners of overseas entities that own UK property—
(a) an assessment of the contribution to the effectiveness of the Levy that such a register would make; and
(b) an update on progress toward implementing such a register.’
This new clause would put into law the Government’s commitment to undertake a review of the Levy by the end of 2027, and require them to publish an assessment every year until a register of beneficial owners of overseas entities that own UK property is in place an assessment of what impact such a register would have on the effectiveness of the Levy, and progress toward the register being established.
New clause 5—Review of the impact of the extension of temporary increase in annual investment allowance—
‘The Chancellor of the Exchequer must, within three months of the end of tax year 2022-23, publish a review of decisions by companies to invest in the UK in 2022-23, which must report on which companies, broken down by size, sector, and country of ownership, have benefited from the annual investment allowance; and this assessment must also assess the merits of the existence of the superdeduction in light of the AIA.’
This new clause would require a review of which companies have benefited from the Annual Investment Allowance in 2022-23, broken down by size, sector, and country of ownership, and an assessment of the merits of the superdeduction in light of the AIA.
New clause 6—Review of the impact of this Act—
‘(1) The Government must publish a review of the measures in this Act within three months of its passing.
(2) The review in subsection (1) must consider how the measures in this Act will affect—
(a) the amount of tax working people will be paying in 2022/23;
(b) household finances in 2022/23;
(c) the rate at which the economy will be growing in 2022/23.’
This review would require the Government to review what impact measures in this Act are having in 2022/23 on the amount of tax working people will be paying, household finances, and economic growth.
New clause 7—Equality Impact Analyses of Provisions of this Act—
‘(1) The Chancellor of the Exchequer must review the equality impact of the provisions of this Act in accordance with this section and lay a report of that review before the House of Commons within six months of the passing of this Act.
(2) A review under this section must consider the impact of those provisions on—
(a) households at different levels of income,
(b) people with protected characteristics (within the meaning of the Equality Act 2010),
(c) the Government’s compliance with the public sector equality duty under section 149 of the Equality Act 2010, and
(d) equality in different parts of the United Kingdom and different regions of England.
(3) A review under this section must include a separate analysis of each separate measure in the Act, and must also consider the cumulative impact of the Act as a whole.’
New clause 8—Government review of operation of Economic crime (anti-money laundering) levy—
‘(1) The Treasury must conduct a review of the Economic crime (anti-money laundering) levy.
(2) The review must consider the impact on the effectiveness of the levy that would be made by the following measures—
(a) the establishment of a register of overseas entities as proposed in the draft Registration of Overseas Entities Bill that was laid before Parliament on 23 July 2018; and
(b) proposals for corporate transparency and reform of the companies register announced in a Ministerial Statement to Parliament on 21 September 2020.
(3) The review must be published and laid before Parliament within two years of the levy coming into operation.’
This new clause would require the Treasury to conduct a review of the economic crime (anti-money laundering levy). In particular, the review would need to consider how the introduction of corporate transparency measures previously announced by the Government would affect the levy’s operation.
New clause 9—Assessment of annual investment allowance—
(a) how much the changes to the annual investment allowance under section 12 of this Act will affect GDP in the event of the Finance Act coming into effect, and
(b) how the same changes would have affected GDP had the UK—
(i) remained in the European Union, and
(ii) left the European Union without a Future Trade and Investment Partnership.’
This new clause would require an assessment of the effects of the provisions in clause 12 on GDP in different scenarios.
New Clause 10—Review of temporary increase in annual investment allowance—
The Government must publish within 12 months of this Act coming into effect an assessment of—
(a) the size, number, and location of companies claiming the increased annual investment allowance,
(b) the impact of this relief upon levels of capital investment, and
(c) the percentage of total business investments that were covered by this relief in 2019, 2020 & 2021.’
This new clause would require an assessment of the take-up and impact of the temporary increase in the AIA.
New clause 11—Assessment of Economic crime (anti-money laundering) levy—
‘The Government must publish within 12 months of the Act coming into effect an assessment of the impact of Part 3 of this Act (Economic crime (anti-money laundering) levy) on the tax gap and how it has affected opportunities for tax evasion, tax avoidance, and other economic crimes.’
This new clause would require an assessment of the impact of the Economic crime (anti-money laundering) levy on the tax gap and on opportunities for tax avoidance, evasion and other economic crimes.
New clause 12—Review of avoidance provisions of sections 84 to 92 on the tax gap—
‘The Government must publish within 12 months of the Act coming into effect an assessment of the provisions in sections 84 to 92 of this Act on the tax gap in the UK.’
This new clause would require an assessment of the impact of the provisions on tax avoidance in clauses 84 to 92 on the tax gap.
New clause 13—Review of provisions of section 85 and publication of information on overseas property ownership—
‘(1) The Government must publish within 12 months of this Act coming into effect an assessment of the impact of the provisions of section 85 about the publication by HMRC of information about tax avoidance schemes.
(2) This assessment must include consideration of the impact of the publication of a register of overseas property ownership upon the promotion of tax avoidance in the UK.’
This new clause would require an assessment of the impact of the provisions of clause 85, and consideration of the impact of publishing a register of overseas property ownership.
New clause 14—Review of reliefs on investments—
‘The Government must publish within 12 months of this Act coming into force an assessment of the impact on the tax gap of the reliefs on investments contained in this Act, and of whether those reliefs have increased opportunities for tax evasion and avoidance.’
New clause 15—Effect on GDP of international matters in Act, and of whole Act—
‘(1) The Government must publish an assessment of the impact on GDP of—
(a) the provisions in sections 24 to 28 of this Act, and
(b) this Act as a whole.
(2) The assessment must also compare these impacts to the impacts had the UK—
(a) remained in the European Union, and
(b) left the European Union without a Future Trade and Investment Partnership.’
This new clause would require a Government assessment of the effect on GDP of the international provisions of the Act, and of the Act as a whole, in different scenarios.
New clause 16—Review of impact of Residential property developer tax on the tax gap—
‘The Government must publish within 12 months of this Act coming into effect an assessment of the impact of Part 2 of this Act (Residential property developer tax) on the tax gap, and of whether it has increased opportunities for tax evasion and avoidance.’
This new clause would require a Government assessment of the impact of the Residential Property Developer Tax introduced in this Bill, and of its effect on opportunities for tax evasion and avoidance.
New clause 17—Impact of Act on tackling climate change—
‘The Government must publish within 12 months of this Act coming into effect an impact assessment of the changes in the Act as a whole on the goal of tackling climate change and the UK‘s plans to reach net zero by 2050.’
New clause 18—Vehicle taxes: effect on climate change goals—
‘The Government must publish within 12 months of this Act coming into effect an assessment of the impact of sections 77 to 79 on the goal of tackling climate change and on the UK‘s plans to reach net zero by 2050.’
New clause 19—Review of impact of reliefs in Act on the tax gap—
‘The Government must publish within 12 months of the Act coming into effect an assessment of the impact of the tax reliefs in this Act on the tax gap, and of whether they have increased opportunities for tax evasion and avoidance.’
New clause 20—Uncertain tax treatment—
‘The Government must publish within 12 months of this Act coming into effect an assessment comparing the rates of uncertain tax in the UK to those of all other OECD countries.’
New clause 21—Emissions certificates—
‘The Government must publish within 12 months of this Act coming into effect an assessment of the impact of sections 99 and Schedule 16 of this Act on the goal of tackling climate change and the UK‘s plans to reach net zero by 2050.’
New clause 22—Composition of the Office of Tax Simplification—
‘The Government must publish within 12 months of this Act coming into effect an assessment of the composition of the Office of Tax Simplification membership with a view to ensuring it is diverse and representative.’
New clause 23—Capacity of the OTS—
‘The Government must publish within 12 months of this Act coming into effect a review of the membership and capacity of the OTS, including consideration of the capacity the membership would have to deal with an expansion of its remit to include fairness in the tax system.’
New clause 24—Gambling—
‘The Government must publish within 12 months of this Act coming into effect an assessment of the provisions of clause 80 on—
(a) the volume of gambling, and
(b) public health.’
New clause 25—Impact of Act on tax burden of hospitality sector—
‘The Government must publish within 12 months of this Act coming into effect an assessment of the impact of the Act as a whole on the tax burden on the hospitality sector.’
New clause 26—Review of the residential property developer tax—
‘(1) The Government must publish a review of the residential property developer tax within three months of the passing of this Act.
(2) The review under subsection (1) must assess how much money the RPDT would raise at a range of rates at 0.5 percentage point increments.’
This review would assess how the revenue the RPDT would raise at range of rates at 0.5 percentage point increments.
New clause 27—Review of Economic crime (anti-money laundering) levy—
‘(1) The Government must publish an impact assessment of the operation of the Economic crime (anti-money laundering) levy within six months of Royal Assent to this Act.
(2) The assessment carried out under subsection (1) must include an assessment of the contribution to the effectiveness of the levy that a register of beneficial owners of property would make.’
This new clause would require the Government to produce an impact assessment of the operation of the new Economic crime (anti-money laundering) levy, and assess how a register of beneficial owners of property would contribute to the effectiveness of the levy.
Amendment 35,page2,line30, leave out Clause 6.
This amendment deletes clause 6 which reduces the rate of the banking surcharge and the level of the surcharge allowance.
Amendment 36,page10,line44, at end insert—
“, and at the end of section 32(1) insert “, but eligibility for the increased maximum annual allowance from 1 January 2022 to 31 March 2023 is available only to businesses which can demonstrate that they have taken steps to reduce carbon emissions within their own business models and have set out further steps for how they plan to reduce carbon emissions towards a net zero goal”.”
This amendment would restrict access to the extended temporary increase in annual investment allowance to businesses that support transition to “net-zero”.
Amendment 37,page10,line44, at end insert—
“, and at the end of section 32(1) insert “, but eligibility for the increased maximum annual allowance from 1 January 2022 to 31 March 2023 is available only to businesses which do not have a history of tax avoidance”.”
This amendment would restrict access to the extended temporary increase in annual investment allowance to businesses that do not have a history of tax avoidance.
Amendment 38,page11,line10, at end insert—
‘(3) In paragraph 2(3) of Schedule 13 of that Act—
(a) after “second straddling period is” insert “the greater of (a)”; and
(b) after “of that sub-paragraph” add “and (b) the amount (if any) by which the maximum allowance under section 51A of CAA 2001 had there been no temporary increase in the allowance exceeds the annual investment allowance qualifying expenditure incurred before 1 April 2023.”’
This amendment would amend the transitional provisions for the reversion of the AIA to £200,000 on 1 April 2023, to ensure that smaller businesses with lower levels of qualifying capital expenditure are not disadvantaged by having their effective AIA limit restricted to significantly less than £200,000 for a period.
Amendment 34,page19,line41, at end insert—
‘(10A) The Secretary of State must consult trade unions representing UK seafarers before making any regulations pursuant to subsection (8).’
This amendment would require the Government to consult trade unions representing UK seafarers before making regulations pursuant to subsection (8) of this clause. This subsection extends to ships not registered in the UK the power of the Department to make regulations requiring proof from companies and groups within the tonnage tax regime that their ships comply with safety, environmental and working conditions.
Government amendments 1 to 13.
Government new schedule 1—Freeport tax site reliefs: provision about regulations.
Government new schedule 2—Public interest business protection tax.
Government amendments 14 to 33.

Lucy Frazer: I thank all Members who have taken part in the debates on the Finance Bill so far. Today we are focusing on a number of potential amendments to the Bill. Many of the amendments seek to ensure the proper functioning of the legislation in response to stakeholder scrutiny and feedback. Others take forward responses to substantive issues that have emerged during the Bill’s passage. I will address each amendment in turn.
Amendments 1 to 8 to clause 36 relate to the Bill’s measures to establish a residential property developer tax, or RPDT. These amendments ensure that those holding a specific type of build licence giving them effective control of the land are subject to RPDT. That will ensure that the legislation works as intended, and closes a potential loophole.
Amendments 9 and 10 to clause 58 relate to the Bill’s clauses on the economic crime (anti-money laundering) levy. These amendments seek simply to amend clause 58 by replacing two references to “entities that are” with “persons”, providing further clarity by using terms consistently throughout the legislation.
Amendments 11 to 13 form part of the extensive action that the Government are taking to address the current heavy goods vehicle driver shortage. As Members will remember, at the last autumn Budget, the Government temporarily extended cabotage rights for foreign operators of heavy goods vehicles until 30 April this year to ease supply-chain pressures. That change was made on a short-term basis to support essential supply chains. These amendments seek to introduce an enabling power through the Bill to make temporary changes to vehicle excise duty legislation should the Government decide to introduce a further temporary extension of road haulage cabotage flexibilities beyond April and up to 31 December 2022. These amendments do not, in themselves, extend those flexibilities. The Government have made no decision to extend the cabotage easement. Any such decision would be taken only after consulting with interested parties, and in consideration of wider pressure on supply chains at the time.
Amendments 14 to 17 are technical amendments to clauses 7 and 8, and to schedule 1, which seek to abolish the basis period rules for the self-employed and partners, and introduce the tax-year basis from April 2024. The amendments will ensure that eligible taxpayers are able to benefit from certain tax reliefs, including double taxation relief, that are given as a deduction against tax rather than against profits during the transition to the new tax-year basis. The amendments are required to avoid an unintentional outcome of the basis period reform transition rules.
Amendments 18 to 30 address a number of technical points in the new asset holding companies regime to better reflect the original policy intentions. These amendments follow engagement with industry. They will make the rules of the tax regime clearer for companies that will use it, and will ensure that it can be more effectively implemented.
Amendments 31 to 33 relate to accounting standards. They make minor technical changes to part 2 of schedule 5, which revokes the requirement for life insurance companies to spread their acquisition costs over seven years for tax purposes. These changes will simply ensure that the legislation functions as originally intended.
I turn now to the Government new clauses and new schedules. New clause 1 and new schedule 1 will deal with provisions about regulations regarding freeports. These new provisions seek to build on our existing powers that allow us to introduce, amend and remove conditions to enable businesses to qualify for freeport tax reliefs. The provisions do that by allowing the Government to use secondary legislation to remove and recover those reliefs from individual businesses, if necessary on a prospective basis. This power could be used to enforce compliance. For instance, it would allow the Government to introduce new reporting requirements if needed, and to respond if companies did not adhere to them by removing reliefs or taking other action.
These provisions support our critical freeports programme, which will help to create employment in left-behind areas, and allow them to prosper with additional and much-needed investment. We look forward to seeing them, and the businesses within them, prosper.
New clause 3 and new schedule 2 seek to legislate for a new public interest business protection tax. Energy groups will often enter into derivative contracts to hedge their exposure to fluctuations in wholesale energy prices, and help to ensure that they can supply energy to customers at the prices fixed and under the price cap set by Ofgem. They will typically use a forward purchase agreement to buy energy in the future at a price that is fixed at the time when the contract is entered into.
The Government have been monitoring the global rise in wholesale energy prices very closely. We have a serious concern about certain arrangements whereby energy suppliers do not own, control or have the economic rights to the key assets needed to run their businesses, including forward purchase contracts. It is currently possible for an energy business to derive value from such a valuable asset for its own benefit and the benefit of its shareholders, while leaving its energy supply business to fail, or increasing the costs of a failure. The costs of that failure would then be picked up by the taxpayer or consumers, because it would trigger a special administration regime or a supplier of last resort scheme. These are special Government-funded administration routes that help to ensure that UK customers continue to be supplied with energy.
Ofgem is now consulting on a range of regulatory actions that it proposes to take to ensure that the right protections are in place in these circumstances. That work will ensure the ongoing resilience of energy supply businesses. However, it will take months for these changes to come into effect. The Government recognise that it would be unacceptable for a Government to allow business owners to profit from engineering this kind of outcome in the interim period, at great and direct expense to the taxpayer.

Peter Grant: I do not think that anyone would argue with the intention behind the new schedule, but it is not so much a new schedule as a Bill within a Bill. It is 25 pages long, and it introduces a tax  that has not existed before. It was tabled less than 48 hours ago, and as far as I can see there has been no consultation with anyone. Given that this issue has been known about for so long, why has it taken until now for the Government to table such a large, complex and unwieldy amendment to their own legislation?

Lucy Frazer: I understand the hon. Gentleman’s concern. The Bill has been tabled at this time because Ofgem has identified a risk related to energy suppliers in the circumstances that I have described. If that eventuality came to pass, there would be a significant loss to taxpayers if we did not introduce the legislation to prevent it. I understand his concern, but it is necessary for the Government to introduce this tax and to introduce it now, to ensure that these risks do not materialise.

Mel Stride: Am I right in assuming that the purpose of the new tax is to discourage certain types of behaviour rather than to raise revenue?

Lucy Frazer: My right hon. Friend is right. We are not seeking to raise revenue; we are seeking to prevent certain circumstances from coming about, and we hope that this deterrent will be sufficient. Of course, if it were not, we would be able to recoup the money by way of tax. He will have spotted that the legislation is only in force for a short period to allow Ofgem to take regulatory action to ensure that we deal with this issue in the appropriate way through regulation rather than by bringing preventive action by way of a tax.
As I was saying, this new tax will have effect where steps are taken to obtain value from assets that materially contribute to a licensed energy supply business entering into special measures or to the increased costs of the business where it is a subject of special measures on or after 28 January this year and before 28 January next year. The tax will apply to the value of the assets that are held in connection with a licensed energy supply business where the assets in scope of the tax exceed £100 million, including assets held by connected persons. This is to ensure that the tax would capture only the very largest energy businesses. The tax will apply at a rate of 75% so as to be an active and effective deterrent against actions that are not in the public interest, and to recoup a substantial proportion of the costs that would otherwise fall to the Government under special administration measures in the event that such action was taken, as my right hon. Friend the Member for Central Devon (Mel Stride) pointed out.
In order to ensure that the tax is robust against avoidance activity, and given the sums at stake, the Government consider it necessary for Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs to be able to recover the tax from other persons if it cannot recover it from the relevant company. These joint and several liability provisions will apply only to companies under common ownership, as well as investors and persons connected with those investors in limited circumstances. Safeguards are also in place to permit certain affected persons to make a claim for relief to limit the amount of joint and several liability to the amount that they potentially benefit from such transactions. It is our hope and expectation that no business would pursue such action and that the tax will not be charged. The tax is a temporary and necessary safeguard that will protect the taxpayer and energy consumers in the interim period before the regulatory change takes effect.
The Government amendments will ensure that the legislation works as it should and protects the interests of the people of this country. I therefore commend to the House amendments 1 to 33, new clauses 1 and 3, and new schedules 1 and 2, and I urge Members to accept them.

James Murray: Any member of the public hearing that the Government were today voting their Finance Bill through the House of Commons might expect such a Bill to do something to help with the cost of living crisis facing families up and down this country. Our new clause 6 makes this simple point. It asks the Government to set out how the measures in the Bill will affect household finances, the amount of tax working people are paying, and the rate of growth in the economy in the coming year.
I suspect that Ministers will want to avoid our new clause 6 because they know what the answers will be. The truth is that whether through this Bill or any other means, the Government are letting energy bills soar, refusing to cancel their national insurance hike, and failing to set out a plan for growth. The Conservatives’ failure to grow the economy over the last decade, and their inability to plan for growth in the future, has left them with no choice but to raise taxes. This low-growth, high-tax approach to the economy has become the hallmark of these Conservatives in power.
Let me make it clear why our new clause 6 might make such difficult reading for Conservative Members. People see their energy bills going up and about to soar, inflation at its highest rate in decades, and their wages falling in real terms—and what do the Tories do? They raise national insurance by £274 for a typical full-time worker. It is the worst possible tax rise at the worst possible time. We warned that it was wrong when the Government pushed it through Parliament last year. Our arguments have only got stronger since then, so instead of digging in, the Chancellor and the Prime Minister should do the right thing and scrap this tax hike on working people and their jobs. Despite calls on the Government from all sides, they are so far refusing to budge. In this Bill, they offer no relief to working people, who face soaring prices and tax bills. They have managed to find time, however, to put into law a tax cut for banks, as we see in clause 6.
Clause 6, which our amendment 35 seeks to delete, would see the rate of the banking corporation tax surcharge fall from 8% to 3%, with the allowance for the charge raised from £25 million to £100 million. That will cost the public finances £1 billion a year by the end of this Parliament. Throughout the passage of the Bill, the Financial Secretary to the Treasury has used smoke and mirrors desperately to pretend that the Government are not cutting taxes for banks. She has tried to hide this tax cut under a separate change to corporation tax that may never even come to pass.

Anthony Browne: Including corporation tax and the surcharge, the taxation of banks is currently at 27%. After this legislation, it will be 28%. Does the hon. Member agree that 28% is higher than 27%, and therefore taxes on banks are actually going to rise, not go down?

James Murray: It is the same tired doublespeak by Government Members trying to hide this tax cut for banks. However they try to present it, in this Bill the  banking surcharge is cut from 8% to 3%; it is there in the policy costings from the Treasury that the measure will cost the public purse £1 billion a year by the end of this Parliament. If Government Members do not like this tax cut, they can simply vote with us to delete it at the end of Report, rather than pretend it does not exist.

Anthony Browne: Will the hon. Member give way?

James Murray: No, I am going to make some progress.
The truth is that this tax cut is going ahead at a time when bankers’ earnings are on the rise, with investment banks’ profits soaring off the back of a wave of takeovers and mergers caused by the pandemic. The UK arm of Goldman Sachs—a business that the Chancellor will know well—boosted its pay by more than a third last year, Barclays is set to raise bonus payments by more than 25% in its corporate investment bank, and boutique banks in the City are expected to do especially well, as they are exempt from rules that limit bonuses.
These measures show just how out of touch this Government and this Chancellor are: they are championing a tax cut for banks while ignoring calls from the TUC, the Federation of Small Businesses, the Institute of Directors, Labour MPs, some on their own side, and the British public, to abandon their tax cut on working people and their jobs. If Ministers are still refusing to listen, today we are giving their Back Benchers an opportunity to say, “Enough is enough.” They can vote with us tonight to cancel the banking tax cut and make the Government think again.
The national insurance hike is wrong because it threatens people’s financial security. I will now turn to other aspects of the Bill that relate to wider economic security and the threat of economic crime.

Simon Hoare: Just before the hon. Gentleman leaves the rise in national insurance contributions—a difficult decision for any Government, particularly given the backdrop of a manifesto commitment—surely he would criticise the Government were they to put the ideology of a manifesto front and centre, instead of trying to find a way of ameliorating what would clearly be growing waiting lists and people queuing at all our advice surgeries and offices, complaining that they could not get the treatment they needed, which they were denied during the pandemic. Surely that is the right thing to do for public health and all our citizens.

James Murray: No one denies that the NHS needs more money, but hiding behind the hon. Member’s intervention is the idea that there is no other way to raise the £12 billion that the national insurance rise will raise. It takes some cheek to hear that from Conservative Members, when just yesterday we heard of £8.7 billion being wasted on PPE procurement and £4.3 billion of fraud being written off by the Chancellor—there is the £12 billion. Frankly, the Chancellor should stop wasting money, stop letting criminals get away with fraud, and stop expecting working people to pick up the bill.

Peter Grant: I commend the hon. Member for reminding the Government just how much of our money they have wasted in the last year. Does he remember a message on the side of a bus that promised a huge cash boost to the NHS if we left the European Union, and has he wondered what happened to that money?

James Murray: I remember many slogans that the Conservative party has used and I would not trust many of them. However, I would like to make some progress and talk about what the Government are doing, or failing to do, to tackle economic crime.
We support the principle behind the economic crime levy that part 3 of the Bill seeks to introduce, although we and others have questioned whether it will be enough. More widely, however, it is impossible to take this Government seriously when it comes to economic crime. Ministers seem to change their mind over an economic crime Bill by the day and, as our new clause 4 makes clear, we are all still waiting for the Government to establish a register of beneficial owners of overseas entities that own UK property.
This new public register is desperately needed, has been greatly delayed and would bring transparency to the overseas ownership of UK property. It would help to stop the use of UK property for money laundering and would finally help to tackle the shocking reputation our country has earned for being the world’s laundromat for illicit finance. Plans to introduce a register were first announced by the Conservatives in 2016 and legislation was first published in 2018. We were promised that it would be operational by 2021. It is now 2022, so this is a promise clearly broken by the Conservatives. We have seen all manner of hand-wringing from Treasury Ministers over plans for the register during the passage of the Bill. At one point, they tried to imply that failing to establish the register was the Business Secretary’s fault, but most often they have fallen back on the dreaded phrase, “We will introduce legislation to Parliament as soon as parliamentary time allows”.
There is simply no urgency from Treasury Ministers to get the register in place and no urgency whatever from the Prime Minister. Yet, as Members on both sides of the House agree, we need to rid our economic system of money laundering, and that need has become more urgent than ever with the unfolding crisis over Ukraine. Economic sanctions against Russia will be hamstrung as long as those linked to Putin and his regime can hide their wealth. They are hiding that wealth here in the UK, having bought up some of our country’s most expensive property. Much of it will be found in Knightsbridge and Belgravia—in the same SW1 postcode as the House of Commons. Transparency International has identified £1.5 billion-worth of real estate in the capital owned by Russians accused of corruption, or with ties to the Kremlin. The ownership of these firms has been revealed only through court cases, document leaks and investigations by journalists, so it is likely that that figure only scratches the surface. The truth is that high-end property in the UK plays a central role in Russian money laundering, so the Government’s refusal to introduce the register of overseas owners of UK property undermines our economic security.
The UK Government have at least one hand, and not far off both hands, tied behind their back when it comes to pursuing the dirty money of Kremlin-connected oligarchs, because we simply do not know where that money is. We have the legislation to introduce a register to help solve this problem ready to go, but the Conservatives are refusing to implement it. Why is that? Well, The Times reported last week that the Tories have received £2 million  from donors with Russian links since the right hon. Member for Uxbridge and South Ruislip (Boris Johnson) became Prime Minister in 2019. The Centre for American Progress think tank has said that
“uprooting Kremlin-linked oligarchs will be a challenge given the close ties between Russian money and the United Kingdom’s ruling Conservative party”.
There you have it: we know Russian oligarchs linked to Putin are hiding dirty money in high-end property here in our country. Much of it has been used to buy up mansions in Knightsbridge and Belgravia, a mile from where we are as I speak. It is right under our noses and I bet they are laughing at us. We know exactly what to do to stop them. So we ask: why have the Government not acted? At best, it is disinterest in an issue of national and economic security. At worst, it could be argued that it is Conservative party self-interest, given some of its funders and friends. If Conservative Members feel as angry and frustrated as we do, they should join us by voting today for new clause 27, which brings together members of different parties to keep up the pressure on the Government to introduce the promised register of overseas entities who own property here in the UK.
We have also tabled an amendment that relates to the residential property developer tax introduced by part 2 of the Bill. We support the principle behind that tax, which will be levied on the largest developers in the residential property sector. It should help to make sure that those responsible for putting dangerous materials on buildings will pay something towards the very significant costs of removing unsafe cladding. The tax will be levied at 4%, with an expectation of raising £2 billion over 10 years. Although we support the principle of the tax, we should be clear that it will in no way end the cladding scandal, nor will it even settle the question of who pays for the crucial remediation works.
When the Bill began its passage in November 2021, the Government were expecting leaseholders in buildings of between 11 and 18 metres to take on forced loans to pay for the costs of cladding remediation in their building. That prospect hung over leaseholders’ heads for almost a year until, finally, the Secretary of State for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities realised that the Government were wrong to do this. He announced last month that he now expects developers to pay for remediating mid-rise buildings of between 11 and 18 metres. We support any moves to protect leaseholders from these costs, and we have always made it clear that, among the many players involved in the cladding scandal who should be paying to fix it, leaseholders must absolutely not be one of them.
We would like to know more about the Treasury’s view on how the estimated £4 billion needed to remediate buildings of between 11 and 18 metres will be raised. The Housing Secretary has said that he hopes the £4 billion cost will be met by a voluntary fund to which he will persuade developers to contribute. We would like to know the Treasury’s view on what will happen if developers do not come to the table and hand over that £4 billion.
We want to make sure that leaseholders are protected and that the money does not end up coming out of existing affordable homes funding. Last week, my hon. Friend the Member for Greenwich and Woolwich (Matthew Pennycook), the shadow Housing Minister, asked for reassurance on that point. He asked the  Housing Secretary to guarantee that funding already allocated for new social and affordable housing will not be diverted to the building safety crisis should he fail to extract sufficient money from developers. There was no such commitment forthcoming from the Housing Secretary.
It is for that reason that we tabled new clause 26 to press Ministers on what other options they might consider. I would be grateful if the Minister could confirm whether there are any circumstances, if the Housing Secretary is unable to persuade developers to hand over £4 billion voluntarily, in which the level of the residential property developer tax could be reconsidered to help to meet some of the shortfall.
Finally, I would like to address amendments tabled by other Members. My hon. Friend the Member for Easington (Grahame Morris) tabled new clause 2, which would require the Government to review and report to the House on the impact of clause 25 on the training and employment of UK seafarers. I thank him and his colleagues from the National Union of Rail, Maritime and Transport Workers for meeting me recently to explain why they believe the tonnage tax should be amended to strengthen the existing requirements to train UK seafarers.
When clause 25 was debated in Committee, the Minister did not mention the training commitment in the tonnage tax. I would therefore like to add my voice to that of other hon. Members in asking the Government today to set out their plans for the training and employment of UK seafarers.
I also commend my hon. Friend the Member for Streatham (Bell Ribeiro-Addy) for tabling new clause 7, which would require the Government to publish a proper impact assessment of this Bill. The economy is not an abstract concept, and the Government’s decisions on how it runs will affect people’s lives, and different communities in different ways. The people we represent, in communities across the country, deserve a Government who will be up front and transparent about the impact their economic decisions will have, so we would welcome a proper impact assessment.
Across the country, people are worried about the future. Energy bills are soaring and inflation is at its highest in decades, yet the Tories propose to raise national insurance by £274 for a typical full-time worker. That shows just how out of touch the Chancellor is, and it adds insult to injury that he is doing it in the same breath as cutting taxes for banks by £1 billion a year.
The tax rise threatens the financial security of families across the country, and our country’s economic security is being left exposed by this Government. Their shocking failure, apparently driven by self-interest, to put in place a public register of overseas owners of UK property leaves us unable to use the full force of economic sanctions against Putin and his allies. This Government will not protect people from the cost of living crisis, and they will not protect our country from Russian dirty money; the only thing they want to protect is the Prime Minister’s job. I know Tory Back Benchers have not yet summoned the courage to change their leader, but I urge them to do the right thing, at least today, and join us in voting to change this Bill.

Jackie Doyle-Price: It is a great pleasure to address the House on the subject of new clause 2, which I am happy to sponsor with the hon.  Member for Easington (Grahame Morris), with the support of the RMT. I recognise that the Government are reviewing the tonnage tax regime with exactly the right attitude, but I encourage them to think more widely about how we genuinely get a post-Brexit bonus for the entirety of this industry—not just the shipowners, but the workers. I make my comments from my position as chairman of the all-party group for maritime and ports. I am very proud of our maritime sector and I am very proud to represent the ports in Thurrock, particularly in Tilbury and Purfleet, and, of course, the Thames freeport.
The great thing about this Finance Bill is that it shows that the Government are taking advantage of the new freedoms that we have now that we have left the European Union. We now have more tax freedoms, which will encourage more business investment. I am greatly looking forward to watching the Thames freeport grow and grow. There has been a fantastic partnership between Forth Ports, which is based in Scotland, DP World, which invests in London Gateway, and of course Ford at Dagenham. It will bring a whole new lease of life to economic opportunities on the Thames. But I am very keen that workers get a better chance to share in our post-Brexit freedom. It is with that in mind that I have been very happy to engage with the RMT and with the hon. Gentleman to give my support to this sector.
If we are genuinely a maritime nation, which is one of those platitudes that we often trot out in this Chamber, we should have our own maritime workforce, whether it be through ports, or those engaged in shipbuilding—I am very pleased that the Prime Minister has given his personal backing to expanding our shipbuilding sector and getting back to making ships here. But this is also for our seafarers. On a day when we are celebrating levelling up, we should remember that our coastal communities are among those in most need of levelling up. For the workers in those areas, the opportunity to have access to more opportunities for skilled jobs surely should be grasped. With that in mind, I support new clause 2 and the amendment sponsored by the hon. Member for Easington.
Let me tell Members a story about my constituency. I have many retired seafarers in my constituency, as I would, representing what I call the ports capital of the UK—they tell me these great stories of the romantic adventures that they had as young men travelling the world—but I have no seafarers among the current generation. Although the current tonnage tax regime encourages the shipping companies to invest in training opportunities for officers and cadets—all fine and good—I would like to see that extended to encourage more training opportunities for ratings, too. I cannot think of a better way for a young person to enter the world of work than to travel and to see the world while they are learning new skills. Many skills required on a ship can be migrated into employment later in life. To me, it seems like a no brainer if we really want to open up horizons and opportunities for all our young people. It feels a bit elitist to me if, with entirely the right attitude, we use this tax regime and the concessions around it to encourage investment and training and restrict that to the officer class.
We know what has happened in the shipping industry. We are training people to fill senior positions, while shipping companies are recruiting cheaper labour from  elsewhere in the world, and we all know where those countries are. At a time when we are encouraging companies to be more virtuous about their supply chains and tackling the issue of modern slavery, it seems slightly hypocritical to me that we turn the other way when we know of companies that are taking advantage of cheap labour in the maritime sector.
To be fair, the Government have done an awful lot of work on this. I congratulate them on making changes to minimum wage legislation, for example, which has improved conditions in our waters, but we are nothing if not leaders by example. I encourage the Government to go further. I am grateful for the conversation I have had with my right hon. and learned Friend the Financial Secretary to the Treasury and my hon. Friend the Exchequer Secretary to the Treasury about this. As they go through the review, I encourage them to think imaginatively about what more we can do to properly use this important measure to encourage more employment in that industry.
I have nothing much more to add, other than to say that it is a great pleasure to work with Opposition colleagues. I am not sure that I ever thought I would find myself tabling an amendment on behalf of the RMT, but that is what Brexit has done, to be fair—the RMT’s support of Brexit was not without good reason. We are used to having a world run from Brussels, where the business lobby was based on cosy corporatism. In how we now approach economic policy post Brexit, we are determined to ensure that it delivers for the whole of Britain and the whole of our business community; let us ensure that it delivers for the workers too.

Alison Thewliss: It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Thurrock (Jackie Doyle-Price). I very much agree with the principles of her new clause 2 because, if this tonnage tax is to mean anything, it should be about more than just changing a flag; it should be about changing the culture, as she mentioned. I am proud to have in my constituency City of Glasgow College, which has trained a lot of seafarers. It is a big hub for maritime education worldwide. It would be a real boon to it if we could encourage that within the UK, as we are at the moment, and in an independent Scotland it will certainly be a beacon to the world as an island nation.
I rise to speak to the amendments and new clauses in my name and those of my colleagues. As we did in the Bill Committee, we want to highlight the points on which the Finance Bill falls short. Last year, we saw COP26—also in the great constituency of Glasgow Central, where the world came to Glasgow—and I feel that the Finance Bill could have been the opportunity to mark in the legislative process in this place how important the climate change agenda is. It should have run through this Finance Bill and this Budget as through a stick of rock, but unfortunately we are left with just a fluffy sweetie in the bottom of someone’s pocket. It is not enough.
We therefore feel that there should be an assessment of the effect of the Bill’s provisions on climate change and how they affect the UK Government’s net zero targets. In Scotland, we have more ambitious net zero  targets than the UK does. The Scottish Government are delivering lasting action to secure a net zero and climate-resilient future in a way that is fair and just for everyone. The SNP, in government in Scotland, is committed to a just transition to net zero emissions by 2045, with an ambitious interim target in 2030 of a 75% reduction—targets that form the heart of Scottish Government policies and actions.
An example of how that is already being delivered includes the groundbreaking and truly historic ScotWind announcement. We also already have the equivalent of almost 100% of gross electricity consumption generated from renewable sources in Scotland. We have commitments for the renewal of peatland, for the planting of trees and for the tackling of biodiversity loss, and we are leading the Edinburgh process to ensure that a whole-of-Government approach is adopted globally, while committing to protect 30%—and highly protect 10%—of our land for nature by 2030.
All those things are laudable policies, but we see no actions by the UK Government to incentivise them. Finance Bills are full of tax cuts, tax rises, incentives and different measures, and this Bill could have moved so much further to incentivise net zero through the measures introduced. The Bill does not go far enough. It is important to measure not only what is being done, but what could be done. Were the UK Government serious about their climate change commitments, they would rethink the illogical decision to deprioritise the carbon capture and storage facility in the north-east of Scotland. It was a real opportunity. The Government could have and should have gone further, but they short-changed Scotland yet again.
We support a great number of the new provisions in the Bill to do with economic crime. Members should have read already the excellent report released by the Treasury Committee, on which I sit, and which I came from earlier on this afternoon. The 11th report of the Committee, on economic Crime, is a very compelling and detailed read. It notes:
“Economic crime is a major and rapidly growing problem in the UK”,
and that while there has been a range of different initiatives by the UK Government, economic crime
“seems not to be a priority for law enforcement.”
Ministers came to the Committee and told us that they were “not happy” with the progress the Government have made in tackling economic crime, and I could not disagree with the Government on that point. There is certainly a lot more to be done.
While the economic crime levy is broadly welcome, it strikes me that a lot of taxes here are taxing people who are doing the right thing already, rather than chasing the people who are not. That really ought to be more the priority, because we have seen a Minister in the House of Lords resign because of the Government not doing enough and being frustrated at the lack of action by the Government to tackle fraud in the coronavirus loan schemes. There is an awful lot more that the Government could and should be doing on this.
We seek movement on the economic crime Bill. We want there to be an economic crime Bill because so much of the legislation on this issue is still held at Westminster. On the registration of companies, for example, I have spoken long and weary, and will continue to do  so, about the deficiencies in Companies House. The register is complete and utter guff, in that people can put anything in and it is not checked, because there is only an information gathering function, rather than any kind of checking, verification or anti-money laundering organisation at Companies House, and that needs to change. We very much want to see movement on the long overdue registration of overseas entities Bill, and we support all amendments to this Finance Bill to that end. I sat on the Joint Committee, with Members of the House of Lords, on the draft Registration of Overseas Entities Bill, and we took copious information from experts in the field. They said to us, “If you shut down this route, we know where people are going to go next”, and “If you do this, then this will happen.” We made recommendations to the Government, and the Government did not even at that time take up all the recommendations the Committee made.
Since that report was published and the Joint Committee sat, things have only got markedly worse. The criminals are getting away with more, and that has a real effect, because there are implications if those buying up huge swathes of London property cannot be traced. If that property, which should be housing people, is not available to them because it is being used as a means of money laundering, that should worry us all. There are of course implications more widely of the money coming in from Russian oligarchs, with the Government being left vulnerable in dealing with the wider crisis in Ukraine.
If we do not know who owns such property, how can we sanction them and follow them up? How can we take some action against those using the UK as a means of laundering their dirty lucre? We cannot, and it is really important that the UK Government act on this more urgently than they have before. As the hon. Member for Ealing North (James Murray) mentioned, some of this began in 2016. There were Bills in 2018, including the opportunities in the Sanctions and Anti-Money Laundering Bill in 2018, and all such opportunities have been missed, and they are being missed yet again in the Finance Bill we are discussing this afternoon. I think there needs to be an awful lot more action taken, and an awful lot more quickly.
I have quoted other people talking about economic crime recently, but I want to mention Professor Sadiq Isah Radda, who, as the executive secretary of the Presidential Advisory Committee Against Corruption in Nigeria, told our Prime Minister that London was actually
“the most notorious safe haven for looted funds in the world today”.
That really should spur the Government here to action. This has been going on for far too long, and it absolutely must be tackled. It is a stain on the UK and, through things such as Scottish limited partnerships—the legislation those on is reserved to here; it has nothing to do with Scotland—it tarnishes Scotland with a dirty name by association.
Each Finance Bill makes our tax code more complex and, within that, there are more opportunities for people to seek loopholes and ways to reduce the tax that they should pay. For all of us, tax should be regarded not as some kind of burden, but as a duty and the price we pay for living in a civilised society. The more complicated the tax code, the more it can be exploited.
That complexity is hinted at somewhat in the corrective amendments that Ministers have tabled at this late stage. Although this Bill is so complicated, they come to us on Second Reading and in Committee and say, “Oh yes, all things are fine”, but today, at this late stage, we find that things are not quite right and have to be corrected. That makes it all the more worrying that the Government are bringing in this whole new proposal—the public interest business protection tax—without due notice. Again, there may be legitimate reasons for not giving due notice, but there is no consultation or evidence gathering that we get to see before we come here to vote on it today. That goes alongside my general complaint about Finance Bills, which is that their Bill Committees do not take evidence and they should, because that is really important. The public interest business protection tax may well be laudable, but we just do not know sufficiently whether it will be effective, what the evidence is or the Government’s full motivations for introducing it.
I am very grateful to George Crozier of the Chartered Institute of Taxation and the Association of Taxation Technicians, who wrote to me last night with some of his concerns about the proposal and the way that it has appeared at this late stage. Some of his questions about bringing in a new tax without due notice are about the mechanisms in the Bill. It is supposedly time-limited to 12 months, so theoretically it could then be extended in time and in scope by regulation. We do not know whether the Government intend to do that if Ofgem do not move as quickly as they want it to. Again, I accept that the proposal may be about getting Ofgem out of a hole. I am sure that is fine, if that is what the Government want to do, but does that not indicate that it is much easier to make tax changes than effective regulatory changes when there is a point of crisis?
I was very glad that, by coincidence, we on the Treasury Committee had Jim Harra of Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs in front of us this afternoon. I asked him what he felt the impact of this proposal would be, including whether it would have an operational impact. He said, “No, because we hope it raises no taxes whatsoever”. It is unusual for the head of HMRC to say that he hopes to raise no tax from a measure in a Finance Bill, but that is what he said.
As an anti-avoidance, preventive measure, sure, that is fine, but the way in which it has been introduced this afternoon is not very good. We have seen this very late, and we get all the documents, explanatory notes and all the other things that come with it. To introduce something such as this in a Finance Bill seems very suboptimal, as the Minister is wont to say.
Bringing in a policy such as this also misses the wider set of reforms that are needed to the energy system, which the Government are not taking forward with sufficient urgency. My Glasgow Central constituents and households across these islands are urgently crying out for practical support with their energy bills. They need to know that they can afford to put the heating on in the morning. They need to know whether they can afford to use the cooker to heat up their kids’ dinner. They need to know whether they can turn the lights on or whether they all have to huddle in the dark with candles. That is the stark reality for so many people, and it is part of what is missing from this Government’s action. I said at Treasury questions yesterday that it had been almost two months since the Chancellor came to  the House. Although he came yesterday, there was still no practical solution for such people; there is no practical solution in this Finance Bill.
While I am here, I want to ask the Minister about a query raised by the former Pensions Minister, Steve Webb, who pointed out a change on the HMRC website that says:
“Rates for Working Tax Credit, Child Tax Credit, Child Benefit and Guardian’s Allowance for the 2022 to 2023 tax year are provisional and may change between now and 6 April 2022”.
I asked HMRC officials why that change to the website was made and they did not know. I ask the Minister whether she knows why that change has been made. Are the Government riding to the rescue of those people, or is it just a change on a website? It would be useful for people to know the full implications.
I do not aim to keep the House any longer on any of the provisions of this Finance Bill; we have had plenty of time to have our say in Committee. However, the mechanisms in the Bill fundamentally will not fix the cost of living crisis that people up and down these islands face. They will not fix the problem of the national insurance rise heading down the tracks—that tax on jobs that will make it more difficult for employers to take people on at a time when their prices are rising and make it more expensive for individuals to get by. They will not fix the £20-a-week cuts to universal credit and child tax credits, or the urgent energy crisis that people are facing and are so fearful of.
We do not have great confidence in this Finance Bill or its ability to fix the problems that our nations face today. We long for the day when we can have a Government closer to the people in Scotland that will be able to take those decisions in a far more effective and compassionate manner.

Several hon. Members: rose—

Eleanor Laing: Order. I hope to bring in the Minister at 5.55 pm at the very latest, because many questions have been asked that hon. Members want the Minister to answer, so it is only fair to give her the time to answer them. Three hon. Members have tabled new clauses to which they must have the opportunity to speak. I must ask for short speeches, please; I hope we can manage without a time limit, but if those who are speaking to their new clauses can keep to five minutes, everyone will have the opportunity, however briefly, to address the House.

Layla Moran: I rise to speak on behalf of the Liberal Democrats, particularly on new clause 27, which is tabled in my name.
The Liberal Democrats have concerns about this Bill. People who work hard, pay their taxes and play by the rules are seeing their incomes squeezed through no fault of their own. They are being crippled by tax hikes, benefits slashes and skyrocketing bills, and today I am afraid the Chancellor is letting them down. He is providing less in extra catch-up funding for children than he is in a tax cut for bankers. In contrast, the Liberal Democrats are calling for a £15 billion catch-up fund for kids,  support for small businesses and protection from energy bill rises for the most vulnerable, and we support all new clauses that help to that end. We live in precarious times and we must do more.
In the context of escalating tensions with Russia, I am also concerned about what is missing from the Bill. New clause 27 has support from both sides of this House. It is similar to new clauses 4 and 11, tabled by Labour and SNP Front Benchers—I am grateful to them for rowing behind this clause—but it also has Conservative Members as signatories, which goes to show the cross-party support for bringing in this measure.
The new clause asks for an impact assessment to be produced on the operation of the new economic crime levy, and would require the Government to assess how a register of beneficial owners of property would contribute to the effectiveness of such a levy. Sadly, due to the scope of the Bill, the new clause cannot introduce such a register, but that does not make the need for it any less urgent.
The register would close the loopholes that allow oligarchs to launder money through British property. Lax regulations have turned London into a playground and a laundromat for Russian oligarchs, with successive warnings from the intelligence and security communities painting the city as “Londongrad”. Prior to the pandemic, Transparency International identified 87,000 properties in England and Wales that were owned by anonymous companies registered in tax havens. A new analysis has found that, of the £6.7 billion-worth of UK property bought with suspicious money, £1.5 billion comes from Russia.
On Monday, the Foreign Secretary spoke about introducing new sanctions, and I welcomed that. It is interesting that The Moscow Times reported on Monday that the Kremlin was “alarmed” at the British threat and vowed to retaliate. The dirty money that oligarchs invest in yachts, football clubs and Belgravia mansions has close ties to Putin’s own wealth. We know how he operates: he gives them the money to buy the assets. If we aim at the oligarchs, we aim at Putin, but there is a problem, because we cannot sanction what we cannot see. Claims from the Government that we are standing up to Putin’s military manoeuvres ring hollow when he and his friends know full well that they have already hidden half the money in our own back garden, and the Government continue to do nothing about it.
Dirty money also undermines our credibility with our allies. The Centre for American Progress, a think-tank closely linked to the Biden Administration, said:
“Uprooting…oligarchs will be a challenge given the close ties between Russian money and the United Kingdom”.
I am afraid to say that the stench of corruption and dirty money wafts over our political system and the whole country, and it is incumbent on us here and the Government to clean it up. There is a way to do that, and it is through the economic crime Bill, but waiting for that feels like waiting for Godot. It should not be this difficult to get the Government to make good on their own promises, because it was a Conservative Government six years ago who said they would introduce it. Two thousand days later and we have had nothing.
Just this week, the Prime Minister stood at the Dispatch Box and announced plans for a register of beneficial ownership, but at this stage it feels like he is the boy who  cried wolf. I urge the Minister to accept new clause 27, which has support on both sides of the House, to start those tentative steps, to show Putin we are serious and to make sure that we clean up dirty money from our politics and our country for good.

Grahame Morris: I appreciate the opportunity to speak to new clause 2 and amendment 34. I thank all Members who have co-sponsored or signed the new clause. It indicates extensive support not just from Labour Members, but from Members from across the House and a variety of parties. I must declare my interest as a member of the National Union of Rail, Maritime and Transport Workers parliamentary group, and I refer Members to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests.
New clause 2 is very important to UK-based employment in the maritime sector. The issue has been raised with the current shipping Minister, the hon. Member for Witney (Robert Courts), who is sympathetic to the arguments we are making, and previously with his predecessors, most notably the right hon. Member for South Holland and The Deepings (Sir John Hayes), who was enthusiastic about what we propose.
Clause 25 of the Bill makes tonnage tax more flexible for ship owners but no corresponding adjustments for seafarer jobs and skills based in the UK, as eloquently pointed out by the hon. Member for Thurrock (Jackie Doyle-Price). The tonnage tax’s original purpose—it was introduced by a Labour Government, by Gordon Brown—was to arrest the decline in training and employment opportunities for British seafarers in an increasingly deregulated labour market. We have seen the increasing dominance of flags of convenience.
I remind those on the Treasury Bench that at the time of the Falklands war—unbelievably, 40 years ago—there were 45,000 British-based ratings and officers in the UK. Today, that number is below 23,000. About a quarter of all seafarer jobs in the UK industry are UK-based. The Bill does not seek to improve the mandatory link to train officer cadets or to create a separate mandatory link for the training of ratings.
The comprehensive spending review Red Book commits the Government to
“explore how best to make use of existing powers regarding the training commitment”.
However, I understand from discussions with the maritime unions that the process, which I inform the Treasury Bench is being taken forward by the Maritime and Coastguard Agency, is not considering any specific measures to train British ratings or to employ British seafarers, including those who were trained on the tonnage tax vessels. This is a real wasted opportunity. If there is to be a Brexit dividend, we really must address that.
Perhaps it is a case of the Government, without taking action, inadvertently damaging the UK maritime sector, but there is an opportunity to put it right. New clause 2 would require the Government to review the impact of clause 25—tonnage tax—on employment and training for British officers and ratings, including the effect of changes to flagging arrangements on qualifying ships.

Jackie Doyle-Price: The hon. Member is making the case persuasively. Does he agree that one of the difficulties is that Government policy is siloed in this area? Perhaps  that is why the Government are missing the opportunity. He is right that the maritime Minister—the Under-Secretary of State for Transport, my hon. Friend the Member for Witney (Robert Courts)—gets it completely and is sympathetic, but the decision-making capability rests with the Treasury. Does he think that we need to get the Government together to see the right outcome for everyone involved in the shipping industry?

Grahame Morris: I am grateful for that intervention, and of course the hon. Member is right. The new clause’s proposal is not revolutionary; it is common sense. It is joined-up Government and application of the principle of trying to ensure benefits for British-based seafarers from the growth predicted for the maritime sector, particularly in relation to zero-carbon and offshore. That is particularly important, given that the Government could seek to use clause 25 to attract more flags of convenience into the tonnage tax scheme. Tonnage tax is a tax break that has already provided £2.165 billion in relief from corporation tax for UK and international ship owners.
In truth, the new clause would be a modest change. The real measure required to boost seafarer jobs and training, including in some of our most deprived coastal communities—including mine—would be a new mandatory link to ratings training, as well as officer cadet training, as advocated by the ratings’ union, the RMT. I do not propose that, however, because that is beyond the scope of the Bill.
Amendment 34, which is linked to new clause 2, seeks to provide the Secretary of State with the power to consult maritime trade unions over compliance with environmental safety and working conditions on non-UK flagships in the tonnage tax scheme. That would be consistent with the minimum standards on seafarer safety that everyone in the House would seek to support and which are part of the maritime labour convention to which the UK Government are a signatory along with all other maritime nations. I could say a little more but time is short, so, in the interests of progress, I shall leave it at that.

Bell Ribeiro-Addy: I rise to speak to new clause 7, on equality impact analyses. The Government’s efforts to date on equality impact assessments overall have been woeful. There should not be a need for me to speak to any detail of the new clause. We cannot talk about sexism, racism, homophobia, ableism, poverty and regional inequality properly without talking about the economy, because we know that structural inequality and discrimination hold many of our communities back. As my hon. Friend the Member for Ealing North (James Murray) said, we have a right to know exactly who benefits from the Government’s policy agenda, but their continued refusal to publish proper impact assessments for their Bills speaks for itself.
I want to emphasise how the Government and the Bill are deepening already existing inequalities. For all the talk of levelling up, the Government’s policies amount to a sharp widening of all types of inequality, which are already among the widest in western Europe.
The first and most obvious example, because it is the one that the Government make the boldest claims about, relates to geographical disparities and inequalities. The latest  annual data from the ONS shows that the average household income in Kensington and Chelsea was over £63,000 a year. In Sunderland, however, it was just £16,000, and it was almost as bad in other parts of the north. I repeat that that is for entire households, not individuals. What is the Government’s response? Their response is to cut HS2; increase national insurance, which will catch the lowest paid in places such as Sunderland but leave the wealthiest residents of the royal borough unscathed; and level up spending on schools, so that pupils in the leafiest boroughs get more and inner-city pupils are even more deprived.
Ministers seem unaware that there are huge disparities within regions. It is not all rosy in the big cities either, especially in London. The average household income in Lambeth, where my constituency is, is £29,000. In Tower Hamlets it is even lower. Both figures are a tiny fraction of local house prices and there is nothing in any Government agenda for them.
Ministers also seem unaware that there is a huge increase in the exploitation of young people. A recent report from the Resolution Foundation found that one third of all those aged 24 or under returning to work in this phase of the pandemic were doing so in insecure, lower paid or zero-hours work. What is the Government’s response? It is to cut universal credit eligibility to just four weeks and to force them to take jobs where pay is lower. For good measure, they have also frozen the repayment threshold of student loans, so they will find that even a minimal pay rise is eaten into by interest payments.
Contrary to the Prime Minister’s repeated claims in this House, it is not the case that more people are now in work than prior to the pandemic. I would ask that the Prime Minister be called to correct the record, but I fear that there would never be any business done if that became the norm. According to the ONS, there were in fact 526,000 fewer people in work in November 2021 than there were in November 2019, before the pandemic began.
Specifically on women, the ONS reports that, after years of steady decline, the gender pay gap rose once more in 2021, to 7.9% for full-time employees. The Bill and the entirety of Government policy do nothing to address that. Like the employment total, it is not even certain that Ministers are aware of it. Some 3 million women are in low-paid work, compared with 1.9 million men.
LGBT communities have seen a stark rise in homelessness. Homelessness has risen overall by 165% since the Conservative party came to power. The Albert Kennedy Trust reports that 24% of young homeless people or young people at risk of homelessness are from the LGBTQ community. In the disabled community, over 40% of people with learning disabilities lost care and support over the past decade as a result of social care cuts, and the charity Scope reports that over 27% of working-age disabled people are living in poverty.
Finally, I want to discuss briefly the issues facing the black, Asian and minority ethnic community. In 2019 the UN reported that austerity had worsened racial inequality, but this is a Government who deny the very existence of institutional racism when the evidence is all around us. TUC comparisons of median pay show that there is an ethnicity pay gap of 10.13%. Those are only the figures we actually have, because ethnicity pay gap  reporting is woeful and shameful. It is much, much worse than for the gender pay gap. However, we must note that during the pandemic the Government, because equality is just an add-on for them, suspended gender pay gap reporting. I would also make the point that more than half of all the UK’s black children live in poverty. That means that Government policy, in the form of high energy prices, higher national insurance or freezing income tax thresholds, disproportionately hits ethnic minority communities and people in work much harder.
The Government are not using their powers, including fiscal powers, to alleviate those inequalities; they are actually exacerbating them. It is a shameful record. The Government would do well to remember that equality is not expendable. It is not an add-on. It is not an extra. It is actually our law. If they are so certain that they are delivering for everybody in this country, I call on them to accept my new clause to show they are actually delivering for people right across the country. The fact remains that inequalities are out of control and they are doing absolutely nothing to stop that.

Peter Grant: rose—

Richard Thomson: rose—

Nigel Evans: Order. I can see two Members standing and I intend to call the Minister at 5.55 pm. I call you first, Mr Grant, and any time you do not use up before 5.55 can be used by your colleague—no pressure.

Peter Grant: Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker; I am pleased to be able to make a brief contribution to tonight’s debate. I commend the three previous speakers, the hon. Members for Streatham (Bell Ribeiro-Addy), for Easington (Grahame Morris) and for Oxford West and Abingdon (Layla Moran). It is unfortunate that the very inadequate time that the programme motion allowed did not give any of them the time they deserved, given the amount of work they put into their amendments.
I mentioned new clause 3 and new schedule 2 earlier, but “schedule” is a misnomer here. We are not talking about a schedule; we are in effect talking about the “Finance No. 3 Bill”, 25 pages long and intensely complicated. This is our one and only chance to get it right and none of us can feel comfortable that it was tabled on Monday, it is being debated on Wednesday and it comes into force on Friday—not next Friday, but the previous Friday. What on earth are the Government playing at?
I do not have an issue with any of the other important business that took up today’s time—nobody could have any issue with any of that. My issue is that when the Government knew they were going to table such a substantial, technical and complicated amendment at this stage, it was up to them to amend the programme motion to give a decent amount of time, because 90 minutes for this debate is ludicrous. Only the Government had the ability to put forward a change to the programme motion; and only the Government had the opportunity to consult with Opposition parties in advance of that amendment being tabled, or indeed to discuss it with outside stakeholders. Not doing so was a failure, unless the Minister can give a very good reason as to why secrecy was so important. Springing it on the House in this way was, I believe, an abuse of the Government’s powers and shows contempt for Parliament.
The aim of the new tax is laudable and nobody would argue against it, but we have been given no indication as to why the tax is the way to prevent the kind of behaviour that we are trying to deter. It appears that it is just because they can change the tax system immediately and make it retrospective, whereas other things would take a bit longer. I ask the Government this question outright: is the urgency because they have picked up intelligence that another major player in the energy market was about to cut and run—to cash in and bail out? If they cannot answer that in public today, I would appreciate it if they contacted me after, on a guarantee of confidentiality. To be honest, I can see no other reason why there was a need for such secrecy and last-minute panic.
The amendment is restricted to energy companies, but it can also be extended to apply to any other kind of company the Treasury chooses to designate. What is that for? Can the Minister explain what other companies might need to be brought in, and in what circumstances that might need to happen? The measure is only to be in place for a year, or for such other time as the Treasury decides it wants to extend it, and it can extend it as often as it wants, although only until 2025. However, given that the Minister has said that the amendment is essentially a stopgap until Ofgem is able to amend the regulatory environment to prevent these abuses in the market, just how lacking in confidence are they of Ofgem and its ability and willingness to fix this long-standing problem if they think it might need another three years before it is fully dealt with?
Paragraph 41 of new schedule 2 gives the Government the power to change the law retrospectively. No Parliament should ever lightly agree to such a power, but tonight we have been given no choice; we simply have not had sufficient time to look at the detail of that or to get the assurances we would usually want about what that power will and will not be used for.
My hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow Central (Alison Thewliss) referred to comments from the Chartered Institute of Taxation, and the Association of Tax Technicians told me yesterday:
“We have a brand-new tax without any prior announcement, no consultation, little debate, which will be enacted before the next Budget, and will be effective from 28 January 2022. OK, these are arguably special circumstances, but is this a good way to run a tax system?”
The short answer is no, it is not.

Lucy Frazer: I shall endeavour to answer all the points raised swiftly, Mr Deputy Speaker.
The hon. Member for Ealing North (James Murray) began by asking in new clause 6 for us to publish a review of the impact of the amount of tax working people will be paying. He will know that we have already published the “Impact on households” document in the October Budget of 2021 and the Office for Budget Responsibility already produces fiscal forecasts. However, he used the amendment to discuss the issue more broadly, suggesting that the Government were not doing enough to help working families. That simply is not correct, and he knows it.
We have cut tax for low-income families by introducing the universal credit taper rate, saving working families £1,000 a month.[Official Report, 4 February 2022, Vol. 708, c. 6MC.] The hon. Gentleman will know that we increased the rate for the national living wage, and  he will know about the half a billion pounds of household support for the hardest-hit families—not to mention the significant covid support that we have given the families who have needed it over the last 18 months to two years. However, the best way to help people to have appropriate incomes to support themselves is to get them into jobs, and that is why we have spent £2 billion to get young people into the kickstart scheme, and £2.9 billion to help the 1.4 million long-term unemployed to get into jobs, ensuring that we have a lower unemployment rate than comparable countries such as Canada, France, Italy and Spain.
The hon. Member for Oxford West and Abingdon (Layla Moran) talked about the need to put more money into people’s pockets, and to support services. That is exactly what we did in the spending review, with a cash increase of £150 billion a year by 2024, the largest real-terms increase provided by any Parliament in this century. Only yesterday, I was pleased to see an announcement about levelling up education funding across the country.
The hon. Member for Ealing North mentioned the NHS and social care levy. I am proud that this Government are willing to tackle the really difficult issues that face this country. My hon. Friend the Member for North Dorset (Simon Hoare) pointed out that if we secure sufficient funds, we shall be able to tackle waiting times and have more doctors. I should point out that it was a Labour Government who, in the same way, increased national insurance contribution rates by 1% in 2003, specifically to increase NHS funding. The hon. Member also mentioned the banking surcharge, but, as was mentioned by my hon. Friend the Member for South Cambridgeshire (Anthony Browne), tax rates for banks are going not down, but up—to 28%, when they would otherwise be at 27%.
A number of Members on both sides of the House mentioned the economic crime measures in the Bill, and the beneficial ownership register. I hope that those Members were present for Prime Minister’s Question Time this afternoon and heard what the Prime Minister said, showing that we are committed to introducing this legislation. However, we have already done a significant amount to tackle economic crime. Since 2010 the Government have introduced more than 150 new measures and invested more than £2 billion in HMRC to tackle fraud. We do not want in this country money that has been gained through criminality or corruption—it is not welcome in the UK—and the international Finance Action Task Force concluded in December 2018 that we have some of the strongest controls in the world. Since then, we have strengthened those powers even further.
I will spend a couple of seconds on the new clause relating to tonnage tax, referred to by the hon. Member for Ealing North, my hon. Friend the Member for Thurrock (Jackie Doyle-Price) and the hon. Members for Glasgow Central (Alison Thewliss) and for Easington (Grahame Morris). It is important to ensure a fair wage for our seafarers, who are recognised worldwide as some of the most highly skilled. That is why, in 2020, the Government extended the minimum wage entitlement to seafarers on domestic voyages.
The Department for Transport’s “Maritime 2050” strategy shows that we want a diverse and rewarded workforce, so we will continue to engage closely with industry and trade unions to support the training and employment of both British officers and ratings. I  understand that the RMT has had recent meetings with the DFT and the Maritime Skills Commission on the training of ratings and has been invited to submit its analysis to inform further discussions. I wish I had more time to deal with that matter, but I will be happy to take it up further.
On the residential property tax, the hon. Member for Ealing North will know that the Secretary of State for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities is actively working on the matter.
Climate change goals were mentioned by the hon. Member for Glasgow Central, who said that there was not enough investment in businesses to incentivise them. However, in the last financial year, we issued £16 billion-worth of green bonds and set up the UK Infrastructure Bank to invest in net zero, backed with £12 billion of capital, which will also help to unlock more than £40 billion of overall investment in infrastructure.
For all those reasons, and many others, I urge hon. Members to accept the Government amendments, but not the others.
Debate interrupted (Programme Order, 16 November).
The Deputy Speaker put forthwith the Question already proposed from the Chair (Standing Order No. 83E), That the clause be read a Second time.
Question agreed to.
New clause 1 accordingly read a Second time, and added to the Bill.
The Deputy Speaker then put forthwith the Questions necessary for the disposal of the business to be concluded at that time (Standing Order No. 83E).

New Clause 3 - Public interest business protection tax

“(1) Schedule (Public interest business protection tax) makes provision about a tax charged in circumstances where a business for which there is a special administration regime becomes subject to special administration or to other special measures in connection with insolvency.
(2) In this section “special administration”, “special administration regime” and “special measures” have the meanings given by paragraph 2 of that Schedule.”—(Lucy Frazer.)
This new clause introduces NS2.
Brought up, and added to the Bill.

New Clause 17 - Impact of Act on tackling climate change

“The Government must publish within 12 months of this Act coming into effect an impact assessment of the changes in the Act as a whole on the goal of tackling climate change and the UK‘s plans to reach net zero by 2050.”—(Alison Thewliss.)
Brought up.
Question put, That the clause be added to the Bill

The House divided: Ayes 228, Noes 306.
Question accordingly negatived.

New Clause 27 - Review of Economic crime (anti-money laundering) levy

‘(1) The Government must publish an impact assessment of the operation of the Economic crime (anti-money laundering) levy within six months of Royal Assent to this Act.
(2) The assessment carried out under subsection (1) must include an assessment of the contribution to the effectiveness of the levy that a register of beneficial owners of property would make.’—(Layla Moran.)
This new clause would require the Government to produce an impact assessment of the operation of the new Economic crime (anti-money laundering) levy, and assess how a register of beneficial owners of property would contribute to the effectiveness of the levy.
Brought up.
Question put, That the clause be added to the Bill.

The House divided: Ayes 230, Noes 301.
Question accordingly negatived.

Clause 6 - Rate of surcharge and surcharge allowance

Amendment proposed: 35, page 2, line 30, leave out clause 6.—(James Murray.)
Question put, That the amendment be made.

The House divided: Ayes 228, Noes 301.
Question accordingly negatived.

Clause 36 - Residential property development activities: “interest in land”

Amendments made: 1, in clause 36, page28,line10, leave out “An RP developer” and insert “A company”.
This amendment (along with Amendments 2, 3 and 8) removes an unnecessary potential circularity in the meaning of an “interest in land” for the purposes of residential property developer tax.
Amendment 2, in clause 36, page28,line11, leave out “RP developer” and insert “company”
See the explanatory statement for Amendment 1.
Amendment 3, in clause 36,page28,line16, leave out “RP developer’s” and insert “company’s”
See the explanatory statement for Amendment 1.
Amendment 4, in clause 36,page28,line20, leave out subsection (2)
This amendment is consequential on Amendment 5.
Amendment 5, in clause 36,page28,line29, at end insert—
“(3A) But where a company (C) has an interest within subsection (3)(b), that interest is not an excluded interest if it is granted as a result of arrangements to which C or a related company is party and under which an estate in the land in question is to be conveyed by another party to the arrangements at the direction or request of C or a related company to any of—
(a) a person who is not party to the arrangements,
(b) C, or
(c) a company related to C.
(3B) For the purposes of subsection (3A)—
(a) “arrangements” includes any agreement, understanding, scheme, transaction or series of transactions (whether or not legally enforceable);
(b) a conveyance by a person as nominee or bare trustee is to be treated as also being a conveyance by the person or persons for whom they are the nominee or trustee.
(3C) For the purposes of this section, a company (A) is related to another company (B) if—
(a) A is a member of a group of which B is a member;
(b) A is a relevant joint venture company and B, or B together with any other company which is a member of a group of which B is a member, has or have a substantial interest in A.”
This amendment provides that a licence to use or occupy land that is granted as a result of arrangements under which an estate in the land is to be conveyed, at the request of a company or related company, is not an excluded interest for the purposes of clause 36 (and, accordingly, is an interest in land for the purposes of that clause).
Amendment 6, in clause 36,page28,line35, at end insert—
“(4A) For the purposes of subsection (4), a licence falling within subsection (3A) to use or occupy land is to be treated as being disposed of when an estate in the land is, or would be, conveyed under the arrangements as a result of which the licence is granted.”
This amendment provides that a licence of the sort mentioned in subsection (3A) of clause 36 (inserted by Amendment 5) would form part of a company’s trading stock for the purposes of that clause.
Amendment 7, in clause 36,page28,line36, leave out “subsection (4)” and insert “this section”.
This amendment is consequential on Amendment 6.
Amendment 8, in clause 36,page28,line38, leave out “an RP developer” and insert “a company”.—(Lucy Frazer.)
See the explanatory statement for Amendment 1.

Clause 58 - Assessment, payment, collection and recovery

Amendments made: 9, in clause 58,page44,line43, leave out “entities that are” and insert “persons”.
This amendment and Amendment 10 ensure that those liable to pay the economic crime (anti-money laundering) levy are referred to as “persons” in each place for consistency with other provisions of Part 3.
Amendment 10, in clause 58, page45,line9, leave out “entities” and insert “persons”.—(Lucy Frazer.)
See the explanatory statement for Amendment 9.

Clause 78 - Vehicle excise duty: exemption for certain cabotage operations

Amendments made: 11, in clause 78page63,line6, leave out
“period ending with 30th April 2022”
and insert “permitted period”.
See the explanatory statement for Amendment 12.
Amendment 12, in clause 78,page63,line23, at end insert—
“(2ZD) Paragraphs (2ZE) and (2ZF) apply in determining the “permitted period” for the purposes of paragraph (2)(c)(d)(iii).
(2ZE) In the case of vehicles arriving in the United Kingdom on or after 28th October 2021, the “permitted period” means the period ending with—
(a) 30th April 2022, or
(b) such later date as regulations made by the Treasury may specify.
(2ZF) Where regulations made by the Treasury provide for this paragraph to apply in the case of vehicles arriving in the United Kingdom on or after a date specified in the regulations that is after 30th April 2022, the “permitted period” means the period—
(a) beginning with that specified date, and
(b) ending with such later date as the regulations may specify.
(2ZG) The later date specified in regulations under paragraph (2ZE)(b) or (2ZF)(b) must be no later than 31st December 2022.
(2ZH) Regulations under paragraph (2ZE) or (2ZF) are to be made by statutory instrument.
(2ZI) A statutory instrument containing regulations under paragraph (2ZE) or (2ZF) is subject to annulment in pursuance of a resolution of the House of Commons.”
This amendment (along with Amendments 11 and 13) enables the Treasury by regulations to extend the temporary extension of cabotage rights afforded by clause 78 beyond the current end date of 30 April 2022, but any such extension must end on or before 31 December 2022.
Amendment 13, in clause 78,page63,line24, leave out subsection (3).—(Lucy Frazer.)
See the explanatory statement for Amendment 12.

New Schedule 1 - “Freeport tax site reliefs: provision about regulations

Part 1 - First-year allowance for plant and machinery

1 Part 2 of CAA 2001 (plant and machinery allowances) is amended in accordance with paragraphs 2 and 3.
2 (none) In section 45O (expenditure on plant and machinery for use in freeport tax sites), in subsection (7), for the entry relating to section 45R substitute “section 45R (effect of failing to comply with ongoing requirements) and regulations under that section, and”.
3 (1) Section 45R (effect of plant or machinery subsequently being primarily for use outside freeport tax sites) is amended as follows.
(2) In the heading, for the words from “plant” to the end substitute “failing to comply with ongoing requirements”.
(3) After subsection (3) insert—
“(3A) The Treasury may by regulations make provision adding, removing or altering, or otherwise about, circumstances in which expenditure on the provision of plant or machinery is to be treated as never having been first-year qualifying expenditure under section 45O.
(3B) The power to make regulations under subsection (3A) may be exercised only in relation to expenditure incurred on or after the date on which the regulations come into force.
(3C) Subsections (3) and (4) of section 45P apply in relation to regulations under subsection (3A) as they apply in relation to regulations under that section.”
(4) In subsection (4), at the end insert “or regulations under subsection (3A)”.
(5) In subsection (5), after “this section” insert “or of regulations under subsection (3A)”.
(6) In subsection (6), at the end insert “or of regulations under subsection (3A)”.
4 (1) Section 570B of CAA 2001 (orders and regulations made by Treasury or Commissioners) is amended as follows.
(2) In subsection (3), after “section 45P,” insert “45R,”.
(3) In subsection (4), after “section 45P” insert “, 45R”.

Part 2 - Structures and buildings allowances

5 (1) Section 270BNC of CAA 2001 (structures and buildings allowances: power to amend meaning of “freeport qualifying expenditure”) is amended as follows.
(2) In the heading, at the end insert “etc”.
(3) In subsection (1)—
(a) the words from “change” to the end become paragraph (a);
(b) after that paragraph insert “, or
(b) make provision adding, removing or altering, or otherwise about, circumstances in which qualifying expenditure is to be treated as if it were—
(i) freeport qualifying expenditure, or
(ii) other qualifying expenditure,
including provision about assessments, adjustments to assessments, returns, amendments of returns and penalties.”
(4) In subsection (4)(b), after “subsection” insert “(1)(b) or”.
(5) At the end insert—
“(5) The power to make regulations under subsection (1)(b) may be exercised only in relation to qualifying expenditure incurred on or after the date on which the regulations come into force.”

Part 3 - Stamp duty land tax

6 (1) In Schedule 6C to FA 2003 (stamp duty land tax: relief for freeport tax sites), paragraph 12 (power to change the cases in which relief is available) is amended as follows.
(2) In sub-paragraph (1)—
(a) at the end of paragraph (a) insert “or”;
(b) for paragraphs (b) and (c) substitute—
(b) make other provision about the availability of relief under this Schedule, including provision—
(i) adding, removing or altering, or otherwise about, conditions that must be met in order for relief to be available,
(ii) about the withdrawal of relief, or
(iii) about returns where relief is withdrawn.”
(3) In sub-paragraph (4)(b), after “on” insert “sub-paragraph (1)(b) of this paragraph or on”.
(4) At the end insert—
“(5) The power to make regulations under this paragraph may be exercised only in relation to transactions with an effective date that is on or after the date on which the regulations come into force.””—(Lucy Frazer.)
See the explanatory statement for NC1.
Brought up, and added to the Bill.

New Schedule 2 - “Public interest business protection tax

Part 1 - Charge

Charge on value of assets held for qualifying purposes
1 (1) Where—
(a) a person (“P”) takes disqualifying steps in relation to an asset in disqualifying circumstances, and
(b) the £100 million threshold condition is met in relation to the person (whether before, at the same time as or after those steps were taken),
P is liable to pay a tax equal to 75% of the asset’s adjusted value (see paragraph 3).
(2) The tax is to be known as public interest business protection tax and the Commissioners for Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs are responsible for its collection and management.
(3) P takes disqualifying steps in relation to an asset in disqualifying circumstances if—
(a) it is reasonable to conclude that the asset was held by P wholly or partly for the purposes of it being used or being available for use for the benefit of a public interest business carried on by P or by a person connected to P,
(b) steps are taken by P, or by P together with others, that result in the asset not being used to some extent, or being no longer available for use to some extent, for the benefit of the business,
(c) the business becomes subject to special measures (whether before, at the same time as, or after those steps were taken),
(d) the taking of those steps materially contributes to—
(i) the business becoming subject to special measures, or
(ii) a significant increase in the costs of carrying on the business, and
(e) P was aware, or ought reasonably to have been aware, that the asset not being used, or being available for use, by the business would have the effect mentioned in paragraph (d)(i) or (ii).
(4) In this Schedule—
(a) “qualifying purposes” means the purposes described in sub-paragraph (3)(a), and
(b) “disqualifying steps” means steps described in sub-paragraph (3)(b), and steps may fall within that description whether or not—
(i) P or any other person receives any consideration in connection with, or otherwise in consequence of, the taking of the steps, or
(ii) P directly participates in all of the steps.
(5) Disqualifying steps include (for example)—
(a) one or more steps that result in the disposal of the asset where some or all of the proceeds of that disposal are (to any extent) not applied for the benefit of the public interest business (including where some of those proceeds are so applied for a time, but subsequently cease to be);
(b) one or more steps that result in the public interest business being deprived in substance of the benefit of the asset to some extent (including where the benefit of the asset is provided to the business at a greater cost to the business than would have reasonably been expected);
(c) one or more steps that facilitate a person benefiting from the asset or its disposal to the detriment of the public interest business;
(d) entering into arrangements which result in the asset no longer being held, or which result in it being held to a lesser extent, for qualifying purposes in relation to the public interest business (including arrangements that include transactions to which the person is not party);
(e) directing, encouraging or causing another person to do something which results in the asset no longer being held, or which result in it being held to a lesser extent, for qualifying purposes in relation to the public interest business.
(6) Steps taken in contemplation of the taking of disqualifying steps (which might include steps taken in relation to the residence of P) are to be treated as disqualifying steps.
(7) Where the taking of a disqualifying step was delayed by the action of a public authority, that step is to be treated as having been taken at the time at which it would, but for that action, have been taken.
(8) In determining, for the purposes of sub-paragraph (3)(d)(ii) whether there has been an increase in the costs of carrying on the public interest business—
(a) those costs are to be taken to include the costs of any person who, as a result of the special measures, takes over (in substance) the carrying on of any of the activities comprised in the carrying on of the business (such as the costs of a person to whom the customers of the business are transferred), and
(b) whether costs have increased is to be determined by reference to what the costs of carrying on the activities comprised in the carrying on of the business would have been—
(i) had those activities all been carried on by the business, and
(ii) had the asset been available for use (including its being used to avoid or offset a cost) in connection with the carrying on of those activities on the same basis it had been available before the taking of the first disqualifying step.
(9) The £100 million threshold condition is met in relation to P if the combined underlying value (as determined in accordance with paragraph 3(2) and (3)) of all assets in respect of which disqualifying steps were taken in disqualifying circumstances by P and by any person who is connected to P exceeds £100 million.
(10) In this Schedule—
“asset” includes a part of an asset;
“disposal” includes anything which would be a disposal for the purposes of TCGA 1992.
Meaning of “public interest business” and “special measures”
2 (1) For the purposes of this Schedule, a business is a “public interest business” if it is—
(a) an energy supply business, or
(b) a business of a description specified in regulations made by the Treasury.
(2) Regulations may only specify a description of business if a special administration regime exists for persons carrying on businesses of that description.
(3) For the purposes of this Schedule a business is subject to special measures if—
(a) the person carrying on the business enters special administration,
(b) it is subject to arrangements, imposed in connection with the insolvency of the person carrying it on by or under an enactment (including by virtue of any licence required by or under an enactment), for the transfer of customers of the business to another business, or
(c) such other circumstances relating to insolvency as may be specified in regulations made by the Treasury exist in relation to the business or the person carrying it on.
(4) In this paragraph—
“energy supply business” means the business of making supplies required to be authorised under—
(a) a licence granted under section 7A(1) of the Gas Act 1986 (gas supply licences), or
(b) a licence granted under section 6(1)(d) of the Electricity Act 1989 (electricity supply licences);
“special administration” means an insolvency procedure—
(a) that is similar or corresponds to ordinary administration, and
(b) under which the administrator has one or more special objectives instead of or in addition to the objectives of ordinary administration;
“special administration regime” means provision made by an enactment that provides for special administration;
“ordinary administration” means the insolvency procedure provided for by—
(a) Schedule B1 to the Insolvency Act 1986, or
(b) Schedule B1 to the Insolvency (Northern Ireland) Order 1989 (S.I.1989/2405 (N.I. 19)).
Adjusted value of assets
3 (1) To determine the adjusted value of an asset, take the following steps—
Step 1 - value the asset
Determine the underlying value of the asset.
Step 2 - apply reduction to reflect potential losses as a result of taking steps
Deduct an amount equal to 10% of the underlying value from that value.
(2) The underlying value of the asset is the greater of—
(a) the fair value of the asset immediately before the first disqualifying step was taken in relation to it, and
(b) the amount or value of any consideration paid directly or indirectly in connection with, or otherwise in consequence of, the taking of the disqualifying steps (whether paid to the person taking them or to any other person).
(3) Where it is reasonable to conclude that an asset was held partly for qualifying purposes in relation to the public interest business in question and partly for other purposes, reduce the underlying value so that it reflects the proportion of the asset that can be attributed (on a just and reasonable basis) to its being held for qualifying purposes in relation to the business.

Part 2 - Joint and several liability

Liability of associated companies
4 (1) This paragraph applies to any company, other than a company that is subject to special measures, that was associated, at any point during the disqualifying period, with a company (“the principal taxpayer”) that is liable to public interest business protection tax as a result of paragraph 1.
(2) A company is associated with another if—
(a) one of the two has control of the other, or
(b) both are under the control of the same person or persons.
(3) A company to which this paragraph applies is, together with the principal taxpayer, jointly and severally liable to public interest business protection tax.
(4) In this Schedule the “disqualifying period” means the period commencing with the day on which the first disqualifying step was taken and ending with the last day of the period in which the principal taxpayer must make a return under paragraph 8(1).
Joint and several liability of connected persons and others who may benefit
5 (1) This paragraph applies to a person (“R”) and any person connected to R if—
(a) R or a person connected to R receives the proceeds (whether directly or indirectly) of any consideration paid directly or indirectly in connection with, or otherwise in consequence of, the taking of disqualifying steps by a person liable to public interest business protection tax as a result of paragraph 1 (“the principal taxpayer”), and
(b) the sum of amounts received by R and persons connected to R is equal to or exceeds 5% of the adjusted value of the asset.
(2) This paragraph also applies to a person (“S”) and any person connected to S if—
(a) S or a person connected to S had a qualifying interest in a company, partnership or unincorporated association liable to public interest business protection tax as a result of paragraph 1 (“the principal taxpayer”) during the disqualifying period, and
(b) the sum of qualifying interests S and persons connected to S had in the principal taxpayer during that period was equal to or exceeded 5% (see paragraph 6(1) which defines “qualifying interest” as a proportion).
(3) This paragraph does not apply to a person if the person is liable to tax as a result of paragraph 4 in relation to the same asset.
(4) A person to whom this paragraph applies is, together with the principal taxpayer, jointly and severally liable to public interest business protection tax.
(5) But the liability of a person liable to tax as a result of this paragraph is limited to—
(a) in the case of a person to whom this paragraph applies only as a result of sub-paragraph (1), the amount equal to the sum of the proceeds of consideration received (directly or indirectly) by R and persons connected to R,
(b) in the case of a person to whom this paragraph applies only as a result of sub-paragraph (2), the amount equal to the proportion of the principal taxpayer’s liability that is the same as the sum of qualifying interests S and persons connected to S had during the disqualifying period, and
(c) in the case of a person to whom this paragraph applies as a result of both sub-paragraphs (1) and (2), the greater of the amounts described in paragraphs (a) and (b).
(6) References in this paragraph to the receipt of the proceeds of consideration do not include the receipt of any amount pursuant to a loan if—
(a) the parties to that loan are not connected,
(b) the creditor carries on a business of lending money,
(c) the loan was made by the creditor in the ordinary course of that business, and
(d) the terms of the loan were agreed between parties dealing at arm’s length.
Qualifying interests in company, partnership or unincorporated association
6 (1) A person (“the qualifying person”) had a qualifying interest in a company, partnership or unincorporated association liable to tax (“the taxed entity”) during the disqualifying period if at any point during the period—
(a) the qualifying person was beneficially entitled to a proportion of the profits available for distribution to equity holders of the taxed entity, or
(b) the qualifying person was beneficially entitled to a proportion of the assets of the taxed entity for distribution to its equity holders on a winding up,
and the qualifying interest of the person is, for the purposes of paragraph 5(2)(b) and (5)(b), to be treated as the greatest of the proportions that applied at any point during the period.
(2) Chapter 6 of Part 5 of CTA 2010 applies for the purposes of determining the proportions of profits or assets of the taxed entity that the qualifying person is beneficially entitled to as it applies for the purposes of determining the proportions of profits or assets of a company that another company is beneficially entitled to (see, in particular, sections 165 and 166 of that Act).
(3) That Chapter has effect for the purposes of sub-paragraph (1) as if—
(a) in sections 170(3) and 172(3) (shares or securities with limited or temporary rights), for “less than” there were substituted “more than”,
(b) in section 174 (option arrangements)—
(i) in subsection (1), in Step 4, for “lowest proportion” there were substituted “highest proportion”, and
(ii) in subsection (2), for “less than” there were substituted “more than”,
(c) in sections 175(3), 176(3), 177(3) and 178(3) (cases in which more than one of sections 170, 172, and 174 apply), for “lowest proportion” there were substituted “highest proportion”, and
(d) sections 179 to 182 were omitted.
(4) That Chapter is to be read, for those purposes, with all modifications necessary to ensure that—
(a) it applies to a company which does not have share capital or to a partnership or unincorporated association, and to holders of corresponding ordinary holdings in such a company, partnership or unincorporated association, in a way which corresponds to the way they apply to companies with ordinary share capital and holders of ordinary shares in such companies,
(b) it applies in relation to ownership through any trust or other arrangement, in a way which corresponds to the way it applies to ownership through a company, and
(c) for the purposes of achieving paragraphs (a) and (b), profits or assets are attributed to holders of corresponding ordinary holdings in partnerships, unincorporated associations, trusts or other arrangements in a manner which corresponds to the way profits or assets are attributed to holders of ordinary shares in a company which is a body corporate.
(5) In this paragraph “corresponding ordinary holding” means a holding or interest which provides the holder with economic rights corresponding to those provided by a holding of ordinary shares.
Claim for relief
7 (1) This paragraph applies to a person who is liable to tax as a result of paragraph 5 if the person can demonstrate that the potential benefit to the person in connection with the taking of disqualifying steps is less than the amount to which the person would otherwise be liable to tax.
(2) References in this paragraph to the potential benefit to the person are to the maximum amount or value by which the person has or could have benefitted, or could benefit, in connection with the taking of those steps, which may (for example) include by—
(a) receiving, or being entitled (whether absolutely or conditionally) to receive, any amount in connection with the taking of the steps;
(b) being entitled (whether absolutely or conditionally) to any assets, or distribution out of assets, whose value is affected by the taking of the steps;
(c) being a person in respect of whom a power or other discretion may be exercised resulting in the receipt of any such amount, assets or distribution;
(d) disposing of, or being able to dispose of, any such assets.
(3) A person to whom this paragraph applies may make a claim to an officer of Revenue and Customs for relief by way of a reduction of the amount to which the person is liable to secure that the amount does not exceed the potential benefit to the person.
(4) No account is to be taken in a claim under this paragraph of—
(a) any amount of costs that may be incurred in connection with the realisation of a potential benefit unless that amount has been paid before making the claim, or
(b) any losses associated with the taking of the disqualifying steps (as the underlying tax has already been reduced as a result of the application of step 2 in paragraph 3(1)).
(5) An officer of Revenue and Customs to whom a claim is made under this paragraph must determine the claim and make so much (if any) of the reduction claimed as the officer considers is just and reasonable.
(6) A reduction may be made by way of an assessment or the modification of an assessment, or otherwise.
(7) The officer must notify their determination of the claim to the person making it.
(8) A person who has made a claim under this paragraph that has not been determined by an officer of Revenue and Customs may apply to the tribunal for a direction requiring an officer of Revenue and Customs to make that determination within a specified period.
(9) Any such application is subject to the relevant provisions of Part 5 of TMA 1970 (see, in particular, section 48(2)(b) of that Act).
(10) The tribunal must give the direction applied for unless satisfied that there are reasonable grounds for not determining the claim within a specified period.

Part 3 - Administration

Requirement to file return and pay tax chargeable under paragraph 1
8 (1) A person liable to tax as a result of paragraph 1 must make and deliver a return to an officer of Revenue and Customs before the end of the period of 30 days beginning with later of—
(a) the day on which the person became liable,
(b) the day on which the public interest business to which the tax relates entered special measures,
(c) the day on which the £100 million threshold condition is met (see paragraph 1(9)), and
(d) the day on which this Act is passed.
(2) References in this Schedule to the day on which a person became liable to tax as a result of paragraph 1 (however framed) are to the date on which the first of the disqualifying steps to which the tax relates was taken.
(3) A return under this paragraph must contain—
(a) such information, accounts, statements and documents as are relevant to the person’s liability to tax, and
(b) an assessment of the amount (a “self-assessment”), on the basis of the information contained in the return, the person is liable to pay.
(4) The Commissioners for Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs may by notice, published by the Commissioners in such manner as they consider appropriate, specify descriptions of information, accounts and documents that are relevant to a person’s liability to tax (and which accordingly must be contained in a return).
(5) A self-assessment may not be made and delivered under this paragraph after the end of the period of 4 years beginning with the day on which the person became liable to tax.
(6) Where a return is made under this paragraph, the amount assessed is payable on the day after the end of the period of 15 days beginning with the day after the end of the period referred to in sub-paragraph (1).
Notice to file return in respect of joint and several liability under paragraph 4 or 5
9 (1) An officer of Revenue and Customs may by notice require a person liable to public interest business protection tax as a result of paragraph 4 or 5—
(a) to make and deliver to the officer a return containing such information as may reasonably be required in pursuance of the notice, and
(b) to deliver with the return such accounts, statements and documents, relating to information contained in the return as may reasonably be so required.
(2) A notice may only be given to a person under this paragraph if the officer considers that there is a risk that the full amount of tax due from the principal taxpayer (see paragraphs 4 and 5) will not be recovered from the principal taxpayer.
(3) A notice under this paragraph must state the amount the officer determines is the liability of the principal taxpayer.
(4) A return required as a result of a notice given under this paragraph must contain an assessment of the amount (a “self-assessment”), on the basis of the information contained in the return and the amount stated in the notice in accordance with sub-paragraph (3), the person is liable to pay.
(5) A return required as a result of a notice given under this paragraph must be made and delivered before the end of the period of 30 days beginning with the day on which the notice was given.
(6) A person who has paid an amount of tax under or in pursuance of a notice under this paragraph may recover that amount from the principal taxpayer.
(7) Where a return is made under this paragraph, the amount assessed is payable on the day after the end of the period of 45 days beginning with the day on which the notice to which it relates was given.
Time limits in relation to assessment under paragraph 9
10 (1) A notice under paragraph 9(1) may not be given after the end of the period of 3 years beginning with the latest date provided for by whichever of sub-paragraphs (2), (3) and (4) apply.
(2) Where the liability of the principal taxpayer is determined under paragraph 12(1) (HMRC to determine tax where no return made in time), the date provided for by this sub-paragraph is the date on which the determination was made.
(3) Where a return has been made by the principal taxpayer, including where the return supersedes a determination under paragraph 12(1), the date provided for by this sub-paragraph is the latest of—
(a) the last date on which notice of enquiry (see paragraph 13) may be given in relation to the return,
(b) if a notice of enquiry is given, 30 days after the closure notice is issued,
(c) if an appeal is brought against any conclusion stated or amendment made by the closure notice, 30 days after the appeal is finally determined.
(4) Where a discovery assessment (see paragraph 18) is made in relation to the liability of the principal taxpayer, the date provided for by this sub-paragraph is—
(a) where there is no appeal against the assessment, the date when the tax becomes due and payable, and
(b) where there is such an appeal, the date on which the appeal is finally determined.
(5) A self-assessment may not be made and delivered under paragraph 9 after the later of the end of the period of—
(a) 3 years beginning with the latest date provided for by whichever of sub-paragraphs (2), (3) or (4) applies, and
(b) 3 months beginning with the day on which the notice was given.
Amendments and corrections of return
11 (1) A person who makes a return under paragraph 8 or 9 may amend that return by notice to an officer of Revenue and Customs.
(2) An amendment under sub-paragraph (1) may not be made more than twelve months after the end of the period in which the return must be delivered (see paragraphs 8(1) and 9(5)).
(3) An officer of Revenue and Customs may amend a return under paragraph 8 or 9 so as to correct—
(a) obvious errors or omissions in the return (whether errors of principle, arithmetical mistakes or otherwise), and
(b) anything else in the return that the officer has reason to believe is incorrect in the light of information available to the officer.
(4) A correction under sub-paragraph (3) is made by notice to the person whose return it is.
(5) No such correction may be made more than nine months after—
(a) the day on which the return was delivered, or
(b) if the correction is required in consequence of an amendment of the return under sub-paragraph (1), the day on which that amendment was made.
(6) A correction under sub-paragraph (3) is of no effect if the person whose return it is gives notice rejecting the correction.
(7) A notice under sub-paragraph (6) must be given—
(a) to the officer who gave the notice under sub-paragraph (4), and
(b) before the end of the period of 30 days beginning with the day on which the notice under sub-paragraph (4) was issued.
HMRC to determine tax where no return made in time
12 (1) Where a person required to make a return as a result of paragraph 8 or 9 has not delivered that return, an officer of Revenue and Customs may determine to the best of the officer’s information and belief the amount of tax payable by the person.
(2) The power to make a determination under this paragraph becomes exercisable if no return is delivered before the end of the period in which the return must be delivered.
(3) The officer must give notice of a determination under this paragraph to the person, and that notice must state the date on which the determination is issued.
(4) A determination under this paragraph is to have effect as if it were a self-assessment contained in a return under (as the case may be) paragraph 8 or 9.
(5) But if a return is subsequently made containing a self-assessment of the tax, that determination is superseded by the self-assessment provided that return is made and delivered—
(a) no more than 12 months after the date of the determination, and
(b) no later than the end of the period within which a self-assessment may be made as a result of paragraph 8(5) or 10(5) (as the case may be).
(6) Where—
(a) proceedings have been commenced for the recovery of any tax charged by a determination under this paragraph, and
(b) before those proceedings are concluded, the determination is superseded by an assessment as a result of sub-paragraph (5),
those proceedings may be continued as if they were proceedings for the recovery of so much of the tax charged by the self-assessment as is due and payable and has not been paid.
(7) No determination under this paragraph may be made after—
(a) in the case of a determination in relation to a person required to make a return under paragraph 8, the end of the period of 4 years beginning with the day on which the person became liable to tax, or
(b) in the case of a determination in relation to a person required to make a return under paragraph 9, the end of the period referred to in paragraph 10(1).
(8) Where a determination is made under this paragraph, the amount determined is payable on the day after the end of the 14 day period beginning with the day on which an officer of Revenue and Customs notifies the person of the determination.
Enquiry into return
13 (1) An officer of Revenue and Customs may enquire into a return under paragraph 8 or 9 if the officer gives notice that the officer intends to do so (a “notice of enquiry”) to the person whose return it is (“the taxpayer”).
(2) The normal rule is that a notice of enquiry may only be given up to the end of the period of twelve months after the day on which the return was delivered.
(3) But if the taxpayer has amended the return under paragraph 11(1), a notice of enquiry may be given up to the end of the period of twelve months after the amendment was made.
(4) A return which has been the subject of one notice of enquiry may not be the subject of another.
(5) An enquiry extends to anything contained in the return, or required to be contained in the return, subject to the following limitations.
(6) Where a notice of enquiry is given as a result of an amendment of the return under paragraph 11(1) and that notice is given—
(a) after the end of the period referred to in sub-paragraph (2), or
(b) after a closure notice has been issued in relation to an enquiry into the return,
the enquiry into the return is limited to matters to which the amendment relates or which are affected by the amendment.
Completion of enquiry
14 (1) The enquiry is completed when an officer of Revenue and Customs informs the taxpayer by notice (“a closure notice”) that the officer’s enquiries have been completed.
(2) A closure notice must state the officer’s conclusions and—
(a) state that in the officer’s opinion no amendment of the return is required, or
(b) make the amendments of the return required to give effect to the officer’s conclusions.
(3) A closure notice takes effect when it is issued.
(4) The taxpayer may apply to the tribunal for a direction requiring an officer of the Board to issue a closure notice within a specified period.
(5) Any such application is subject to the relevant provisions of Part 5 of TMA 1970 (see, in particular, section 48(2)(b) of that Act).
(6) The tribunal must give the direction applied for unless satisfied that there are reasonable grounds for not issuing the closure notice within a specified period.
Amendment of return by taxpayer during enquiry
15 (1) This paragraph applies if a return is amended under paragraph 11(1) at a time when an enquiry into the return is in progress in relation to any matter to which the amendment relates or which is affected by the amendment.
(2) The amendment does not restrict the scope of the enquiry but may be taken into account (together with any matters arising) in the enquiry.
(3) So far as the amendment affects the amount stated in the self-assessment included in the return as the amount of tax payable, it does not take effect while the enquiry is in progress in relation to any matter to which the amendment relates or which is affected by the amendment.
(4) If an officer of Revenue and Customs states in a closure notice that the officer has taken account of the amendment and that—
(a) the amendment has been taken into account in formulating the amendments contained in the notice, or
(b) the officer has concluded that the amendment is incorrect,
the amendment does not take effect.
(5) Otherwise, the amendment takes effect when a closure notice is issued.
(6) For the purposes of this paragraph and paragraph 16, the period during which an enquiry is in progress in relation to any matter is the whole of the period—
(a) beginning with the day on which notice of enquiry is given, and
(b) ending with the day on which a closure notice is issued.
Amendment of return during enquiry by HMRC to prevent loss of tax
16 (1) This paragraph applies where an enquiry into a return is in progress in relation to any matter.
(2) If the officer forms the opinion—
(a) that the amount stated in the self-assessment contained in the return as the amount of tax payable is insufficient, and
(b) that unless the self-assessment is immediately amended there is likely to be a loss of tax to the Crown,
the officer may by notice to the taxpayer amend the self-assessment to make good the deficiency so far as it relates to the matter.
(3) In the case of an enquiry which, as a result of paragraph 13(6), is limited to matters arising from an amendment of the return, sub-paragraph (2) only applies so far as the deficiency is attributable to the amendment.
Date by which payment to be made after amendment or correction of self-assessment
17 Paragraphs 2 to 5 of Schedule 3ZA to TMA 1970 apply for the purpose of determining when an amount of tax is payable or repayable as a result of an amendment or correction of a self-assessment under this Schedule as if—
(a) the reference in paragraph 2(1) of that Schedule to section 9ZA of that Act were to paragraph 11(1) of this Schedule,
(b) in paragraph 2(3) of that Schedule—
(i) the reference to section 9B(3) of that Act were to paragraph 15(3) of this Schedule,
(ii) the reference to section 9B(3)(a)(i) of that Act were to paragraph 15(4)(a) of this Schedule, and
(iii) the reference to section 9B(3)(b) of that Act were to paragraph 15(5) of this Schedule,
(c) in paragraph 2(4) of that Schedule—
(i) in paragraph (a), for “partial or final closure notice” there were substituted “closure notice”, and
(ii) for paragraph (b) there were substituted—
(d) the reference in paragraph 3(1) of that Schedule to section 9ZB of that Act were to paragraph 11(3) of this Schedule,
(e) the reference in paragraph 4(1) of that Schedule to section 9C of that Act were to paragraph 16 of this Schedule, and
(f) the reference in paragraph 5(1) of that Schedule to section 28A of that Act were to paragraph 14 of this Schedule.
Discovery assessment
18 (1) If an officer of Revenue and Customs discovers—
(a) that a person who ought to have been assessed to tax has not been assessed to tax,
(b) that an assessment to tax is or has become insufficient, or
(c) that any relief from tax which has been given is or has become excessive,
the officer may make an assessment (a “discovery assessment”) in the amount, or the further amount, which ought in the officer’s opinion to be charged in order to make good to the Crown the loss of tax.
(2) Where a person has made and delivered a return under paragraph 8 or 9 a discovery assessment may not be made in respect of the tax to which the return relates unless condition A or B is met.
(3) Condition A is that the situation mentioned in sub-paragraph (1) was brought about carelessly or deliberately by the person or a person acting on that person’s behalf.
(4) Condition B is that at the time when an officer of Revenue and Customs—
(a) ceased to be entitled to give a notice of enquiry to the person, or
(b) in a case where a notice of enquiry was given in relation to the return, issued a closure notice,
the officer could not have been reasonably expected, on the basis of the information made available to the officer before that time, to be aware of the situation mentioned in sub-paragraph (1).
(5) For the purposes of sub-paragraph (4), information is made available to an officer of Revenue and Customs if—
(a) it is contained in the person’s return under paragraph 8 or 9, or in any accounts, statements or documents accompanying the return;
(b) it is contained in any claim made under this Schedule by the person, or in any accounts, statements or documents accompanying any such claim;
(c) it is contained in any documents, accounts or particulars which, for the purposes of any enquiries into the return or any such claim by an officer of Revenue and Customs, are produced or furnished by the person to the officer;
(d) it is information the existence of which, and the relevance of which as regards the situation mentioned in sub-paragraph (1)—
(i) could reasonably be expected to be inferred by an officer of Revenue and Customs from information falling within paragraphs (a) to (c), or
(ii) are notified in writing by the person to an officer of Revenue and Customs.
(6) An objection to the making of an assessment under this paragraph on the ground that neither condition A nor B is fulfilled may only be made on an appeal against the assessment.
(7) Where an amount of tax is assessed under this paragraph, that amount is payable on the day after the end of the 14 day period beginning with the day on which the notice of assessment is issued.
Assessment procedure
19 (1) Notice of an assessment to tax on a person must be served on the person stating—
(a) the date on which the notice is issued, and
(b) the time within which any appeal against the assessment may be made.
(2) After that notice has been served on the person, the assessment may not be altered except in accordance with any express provision of this Schedule or of any provision of the Taxes Acts that applies to public interest business protection tax.
Time limits for assessments
20 (1) The normal rule is that an assessment of a person to tax (other than a self-assessment) may be made at any time within the period of 4 years beginning with the day (“the relevant day”) after the end of the period in which the person was required to make and deliver a return.
(2) But an assessment on a person in a case involving a loss of public interest business protection tax brought about carelessly by the person may be made at any time within the period of 6 years beginning with the relevant day.
(3) And an assessment on a person in a case involving a loss of public interest business protection tax brought about deliberately by the person may be made at any time within the period of 20 years beginning with the relevant day.
Appeals
21 (1) An appeal may be brought against—
(a) any amendment of a self-assessment under paragraph 16 (amendment by HMRC during enquiry to prevent loss of tax),
(b) any conclusion stated or amendment made by a closure notice, or
(c) any assessment to tax which is not a self-assessment.
(2) An appeal may also be brought against a determination by an officer of Revenue and Customs of a claim for a reduction under paragraph 7, but only on the ground that it was not open to the officer to consider the reduction determined by the officer (including a determination not to make any reduction) was just and reasonable.
(3) Sections 47C to 57 of TMA 1970 (appeals) apply (subject to the other provisions of this Schedule) to an appeal under this paragraph as they apply to an appeal under the Taxes Acts.
(4) But in the case of section 55 (recovery of tax not postponed), that section has effect as if—
(a) in subsection (1) for paragraphs (a) and (aa) there were substituted—
“(a) an amendment of a self-assessment under paragraph 16 of Schedule (Public interest business protection tax) to the Finance Act 2022,
(aa) a conclusion stated or an amendment made by a closure notice,”,
(b) after subsection (3) there were inserted—
“(3ZA) But the payment of any amount of public interest business protection tax is not to be postponed unless HMRC or the tribunal (as the case may be) determines that the circumstances of the appellant are exceptional such that it would not be just to refuse postponement of the payment of that amount.”, and
(c) in subsection (6), after “overcharged to tax” there were inserted “to the extent the postponement of the amount is not prevented by subsection (3ZA)”.
(5) If an appeal under sub-paragraph (1)(a) against an amendment of a self-assessment is made while an enquiry is in progress in relation to any matter to which the amendment relates or which is affected by the amendment none of the steps mentioned in section 49A(2)(a) to (c) of TMA 1970 may be taken in relation to the appeal until a closure notice is issued.
(6) Notice of an appeal must—
(a) be given in writing;
(b) specify the grounds of appeal;
(c) be given within 30 days after the specified date to the relevant officer of Revenue and Customs.
(7) In relation to an appeal under sub-paragraph (1)(a)—
(a) the specified date is the date on which the notice of amendment was issued, and
(b) the relevant officer of Revenue and Customs is the officer by whom the notice of amendment was given.
(8) In relation to an appeal under sub-paragraph (1)(b)—
(a) the specified date is the date on which the closure notice was issued, and
(b) the relevant officer of Revenue and Customs is the officer by whom that notice was given.
(9) In relation to an appeal under sub-paragraph (1)(c)—
(a) the specified date is the date on which the notice of assessment was issued, and
(b) the relevant officer of Revenue and Customs is the officer by whom the notice of assessment was given.
(10) In relation to an appeal under sub-paragraph (2)—
(a) the specified date is the date on which the notice under paragraph 7(7) was issued, and
(b) the relevant officer of Revenue and Customs is the officer by whom that notice was given.
Duty to preserve records
22 (1) A person liable to tax must—
(a) keep such records as may be needed to enable the person to deliver a correct and complete return in respect of the tax, and
(b) preserve those records in accordance with this paragraph.
(2) The records must be preserved until the end of the relevant day.
(3) In this paragraph “relevant day” means–
(a) in relation to a person liable to tax as a result of paragraph 1, the later of—
(i) the sixth anniversary of the day on which the person became liable to tax,
(ii) the day on which any enquiry into a return made and delivered by the person is completed, and
(iii) the day on which an officer of Revenue and Customs no longer has power to enquire into such a return,
(b) in relation to a person liable to tax as a result of paragraph 4 or 5, the later of—
(i) the sixth anniversary of the day on which the person was given a notice under paragraph 9(1),
(ii) the day on which an officer of Revenue and Customs no longer has power to give such a notice (see paragraph 10(1)),
(iii) the day on which any enquiry into a return made and delivered by the person is completed, and
(iv) the day on which an officer of Revenue and Customs no longer has power to enquire into such a return, and
(c) such earlier day as may be specified in writing by the Commissioners for Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs (and different days may be specified for different cases).
(4) The Commissioners for Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs may by regulations—
(a) provide that the records required to be kept and preserved under this paragraph include, or do not include, records specified in the regulations, and
(b) provide that those records include supporting documents (including accounts, books, deeds, contracts, vouchers and receipts) so specified.
(5) Regulations under this paragraph may—
(a) make different provision for different cases, and
(b) make provision by reference to things specified in a notice published by the Commissioners for Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs in accordance with the regulations (and not withdrawn by a subsequent notice).
(6) The duty under this paragraph to preserve records may be discharged—
(a) by preserving them in any form and by any means, or
(b) by preserving the information contained in them in any form and by any means,
subject to any conditions or exceptions specified in writing by the Commissioners for Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs.
(7) A person who fails to comply with this paragraph is liable to a penalty not exceeding £3,000.
(8) But no penalty is incurred if the records which the person fails to keep or preserve are records which might have been needed only for the purposes of a claim under this Schedule.
(9) Sections 100 to 103 of TMA 1970 apply to a penalty under this paragraph as they apply to a penalty under a provision of the Taxes Acts to which those sections apply.
Collection and recovery
23 Part 6 of TMA 1970 applies to public interest business protection tax as it applies to tax within the meaning of that Act as if in section 69(1) (recovery of penalty or interest), before paragraph (c) there were inserted—
“(ba) penalties imposed under paragraph 56 to the Finance Act 2009 as a result of the modifications made by paragraph 28 of Schedule (Public interest business protection tax) to the Finance Act 2022;”.
Overpaid tax
24 (1) Paragraphs 51 to 51G of Schedule 18 to FA 1998 (overpaid tax) apply, as those provisions apply in relation to a claim for repayment or discharge of corporation tax, for the purposes of making a claim for repayment or discharge of an amount of public interest business protection tax (an “overpayment claim”) where the person believes the tax is not due.
(2) Those provisions have effect for the purposes of an overpayment claim as if—
(a) in paragraph 51—
(i) in sub-paragraph (4), the reference to Part 7 of Schedule 18 to FA 1998 were to paragraph 25 of this Schedule, and
(ii) in sub-paragraph (6), for paragraph (a) and (b) there were substituted—
(b) in paragraph 51A(3), for “the Corporation Tax Acts” there were substituted “—
(a) provision made by or under Schedule (Public interest business protection tax) to the Finance Act 2022, or
(b) provision having effect for the purposes of public interest business protection tax as a result of provision made by or under that Schedule”,
(c) in paragraph 51B—
(i) in sub-paragraph (1), for “more than 4 years after the end of the relevant accounting period” there were substituted “after the last day on which a self-assessment may be made and delivered in relation to the tax (see paragraphs 8(5) and 10(5) of Schedule (Public interest business protection tax) to the Finance Act 2022)”,
(ii) sub-paragraphs (2) and (3) were omitted, and
(iii) in sub-paragraph (4), for “company tax return” there were substituted “return under paragraph 8 or 9 of Schedule (Public interest business protection tax) to the Finance Act 2022”,
(d) in paragraph 51BA(1)—
(i) in paragraph (a), for “paragraph 36 or 37” there were substituted “paragraph 12 of Schedule (Public interest business protection tax) to the Finance Act 2022”, and
(ii) in paragraph (b) for sub-paragraph (iii) there were substituted—the last day on which a self-assessment may be made and delivered in relation to the tax (see paragraphs 8(5) and 10(5) of Schedule (Public interest business protection tax) to the Finance Act 2022) has passed, and”,
(e) paragraphs 51C and 51D were omitted,
(f) in paragraph 51E—
(i) references to a discovery assessment were to a discovery assessment under this Schedule (see paragraph 18),
(ii) references to a discovery determination were omitted, and
(iii) in sub-paragraph (2)(a), for “restrictions in paragraphs 42 to 45” there were substituted “restriction in paragraph 18(2) of Schedule (Public interest business protection tax) to the Finance Act 2022,
(g) paragraph 51F were omitted, and
(h) in paragraph 51G—
(i) in sub-paragraph (1), for “company” there were substituted “person”, and
(ii) in sub-paragraph (3)(c), the reference to paragraph 51F(1)(b) were omitted.
Claims under this Schedule
25 (1) A claim under paragraph 7 or 24 (for relief from, or repayment or discharge of, tax) must be for an amount which is quantified at the time when the claim is made.
(2) A claim must be made within 4 years from the day on which the person whose claim it is became liable to the tax to which the claim relates.
(3) A person who has made a claim under this Schedule and subsequently discovers that a mistake has been made in it may make a supplementary claim within the time allowed for making the original claim.
(4) Paragraphs 2 and 2A of Schedule 1A to TMA 1970 (making of claims and keeping and preserving of records) apply to a claim under paragraph 7 of this Schedule but as if in paragraph 2A of that Schedule—
(a) in sub-paragraph (1) “in relation to a year of assessment or other period” were omitted, and
(b) the relevant day for the purposes of that sub-paragraph were the day on which an officer of Revenue and Customs has issued a notice under paragraph 7(7) of this Schedule in relation to the claim.
(5) Schedule 1A to TMA 1970 (claims etc not included in returns) applies to a claim under paragraph 24 of this Schedule but as if in paragraph 2A(1) of that Schedule “in relation to a year of assessment or other period” were omitted.
Penalty for failure to submit return
26 (1) Schedule 55 to FA 2009 (penalty for failure to make returns) has effect with the following modifications.
(2) Paragraph 1(2) of that Schedule has effect as if for the words before paragraph (a) there were substituted “Paragraphs 2 to 13P set out—”.
(3) The Table in that paragraph has effect as if at the end there were inserted—

  

  “30
  Public interest business protection tax
  (a) Return under paragraph 8 or 9 of Schedule (Public interest business protection tax) to FA 2022
  (b) Accounts, statement or document required under either of those paragraphs.”

  

(4) That Schedule has effect as if before paragraph 14 there were inserted—
Amount of penalty: public interest business protection tax
13K Paragraphs 13L to 13P apply in the case of a return falling within item 30 in the Table.
13L P is liable to a penalty under this paragraph of £10,000.
13M (1) P is liable to a penalty under this paragraph if (and only if) P’s failure continues after the end of the period of 30 days beginning with the penalty date.
(2) The penalty under this paragraph is £10,000.
13N (1) P is liable to a penalty under this paragraph if (and only if) P’s failure continues after the end of the period of 3 months beginning with the penalty date.
(2) The penalty under this paragraph is 10% of any liability to tax which would have been shown in the return in question.
13O (1) P is liable to a penalty under this paragraph if (and only if) P’s failure continues after the end of the period of 6 months beginning with the penalty date.
(2) The penalty under this paragraph is 10% of any liability to tax which would have been shown in the return in question.
13P (1) P is liable to a penalty under this paragraph if (and only if) P’s failure continues after the end of the period of 12 months beginning with the penalty date.
(2) Where, by failing to make the return, P withholds information which would enable or assist HMRC to assess P’s liability to tax, the penalty under this paragraph is determined in accordance with sub-paragraphs (3) and (4).
(3) If the withholding of the information is deliberate and concealed, the penalty is 100% of any liability to tax which would have been shown in the return in question.
(4) If the withholding of the information is deliberate but not concealed, the penalty is 70% of any liability to tax which would have been shown in the return in question.
(5) In any other case, the penalty under this paragraph is 10% of any liability to tax which would have been shown in the return in question.”
Penalties for errors
27 Schedule 24 to FA 2007 has effect as if in the Table in paragraph 1 after the entry for “Machine games duty” there were inserted—

  

  “Public interest business protection tax
  Return under paragraph 8 or 9 of Schedule (Public interest business protection tax) to FA 2022.


  “Public interest business protection tax
  Return, statement or declaration in connection with a claim for a relief


  “Public interest business protection tax
  Accounts in connection with ascertaining liability to tax.”

  

Failure to pay public interest business protection tax on time
28 Schedule 56 to FA 2009 has effect as if in the Table in paragraph 1 of that Schedule, after the entry for item 1A there were inserted—

  

  “1B
  Public interest business protection tax
  Amount payable under paragraph 8(6) of Schedule (Public interest business protection tax) to FA 2022
  The date falling 30 days after the date specified in that paragraph as the date by which the amount must be paid


  1C
  Public interest business protection tax
  Amount payable under paragraph 9(7) of Schedule (Public interest business protection tax) to FA 2022
  The date falling 30 days after the date specified in that paragraph as the date by which the amount must be paid


  1D
  Public interest business protection tax
  Amount payable under paragraph 12(8) of Schedule (Public interest business protection tax) to FA 2022
  The date falling 30 days after the date specified in that paragraph as the date by which the amount must be paid.”

  

Interest
29 Sections 101 to 103 of FA 2009 (interest) come into force on 6 April 2021 in relation to amounts payable or paid to Her Majesty‘s Revenue and Customs as a result of provision made by this Schedule.
Application of information, inspection and data-gathering powers
30 (1) Schedule 36 to FA 2008 (information and inspection powers) has effect as if, in paragraph 63(1) of that Schedule (meaning of “tax” for the purposes of that Schedule), after paragraph (c) there were inserted—
“(cza) public interest business protection tax,”.
(2) Schedule 23 to FA 2011 (data-gathering powers) has effect as if, in paragraph 45(1) of that Schedule (meaning of “tax” for the purposes of that Schedule), after paragraph (c) there were inserted—
“(cza) public interest business protection tax,”.
Documents
31 (1) Section 115 of TMA 1970 applies to documents to be given, sent, served or delivered under provision made by or under this Schedule as it applies to documents to be given, sent, served or delivered under the Taxes Acts.
(2) The Income and Corporation Taxes (Electronic Communications) Regulations 2003 (S.I.2003/282) have effect as if, in regulation 2(1)(a)—
(a) the “or” and the end of paragraph (vi) were omitted,
(b) for the “; and” at the end of paragraph (vii) there were substituted “, or”, and
(c) after that paragraph there were inserted—
(i) Schedule (Public interest business protection tax) to the Finance Act 2022; and”.
Disclosures to persons who are joint and severally liable to tax
32 (1) Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs may disclose information about a person they consider liable to public interest business protection tax as a result of paragraph 1 for the purposes mentioned in sub-paragraph (2).
(2) Those purposes are—
(a) the provision of information to a person Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs consider liable to public interest business protection tax as a result of paragraph 4 or 5 where that information may be relevant to the tax position of that person (which may include information about assessments, enquiries and appeals);
(b) facilitating the recovery of amounts under paragraph 9(6) (recovery of amounts paid by persons joint and severally liable from principal taxpayer).
(3) Nothing in this paragraph is to be taken as limiting the circumstances in which information may be disclosed under section 18(2) of CRCA 2005 or under any other enactment or rule of law.
(4) Subject to sub-paragraph (5), no duty of confidentiality or other restriction on disclosure (however imposed) prevents the disclosure of information in accordance with this paragraph.
(5) Nothing in this paragraph authorises the making of a disclosure which—
(a) contravenes the data protection legislation (save that the power conferred by this paragraph is to be taken into account in determining whether a disclosure contravenes that legislation), or
(b) is prohibited by any of Parts 1 to 7 or Chapter 1 of Part 9 of the Investigatory Powers Act 2016 (save that the power conferred by this paragraph is to be taken into account when determining whether a disclosure is prohibited by those provisions).
Application of public interest business protection tax to partnerships and trusts
33 (1) Where a person chargeable to public interest business protection tax as a result of paragraph 1 or 5 is a partnership the responsible partners are jointly and severally liable to any amount to which the partnership is assessed.
(2) The reference in sub-paragraph (1) to “the responsible partners” is to all the persons who are members of the partnership at any time during the disqualifying period.
(3) A partnership is treated as the same partnership notwithstanding a change in membership if any person who was a member before the change remains a member after the change.
(4) Where a person chargeable to public interest business protection tax as a result of paragraph 1 is a trustee, or a body of trustees, of the asset to which the tax relates, the tax may be assessed and charged on and in the name of any one or more of the relevant trustees.
(5) The reference in sub-paragraph (4) to “the relevant trustees” is to all persons who are trustees at any time during the disqualifying period, and any subsequent trustees.
Territorial application of tax
34 A person is chargeable to public interest business protection tax (whether under paragraph 1, 4 or 5) whether or not the person is resident in the United Kingdom.
Power to provide for reliefs etc
35 (1) The Treasury may by regulations make such provision as the Treasury consider appropriate—
(a) about reliefs from public interest business protection tax;
(b) about exemptions from public interest business protection tax.
(2) Regulations under this paragraph may—
(a) make provision about the administration of any such relief or exemption (for example provision about the making of claims);
(b) include provision conferring a discretion on the Commissioners for Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs or on an officer of Revenue and Customs.

Part 4 - Supplementary

Anti-avoidance
36 (1) This paragraph applies to arrangements if the main purpose, or one of the main purposes of the arrangements, is to—
(a) reduce or avoid a charge to public interest business protection tax, or
(b) otherwise avoid the effect of any of the provisions of this Schedule.
(2) Any such reduction or avoidance that would (in the absence of this paragraph) arise from such arrangements is to be counteracted by the making of such adjustments as are just and reasonable.
(3) Any adjustments required to be made under this paragraph (whether or not by an officer of Revenue and Customs) may be made by way of—
(a) an assessment,
(b) the modification of an assessment,
(c) amendment or disallowance of a claim,
or otherwise.
(4) In this paragraph “arrangements” include any agreement, understanding, scheme transaction or series of transactions (whether or not legally enforceable).
No deduction for public interest business protection tax
37 In calculating profits, losses or gains for income tax, capitals gains tax or corporation tax purposes, no deduction is allowed in respect of public interest business protection tax.
Information sharing
38 (1) This paragraph applies to information that—
(a) is held by the Secretary of State or the Gas and Electricity Markets Authority, and
(b) is relevant to public interest business protection tax.
(2) Information to which this paragraph applies may be disclosed by whichever of the Secretary of State or Gas and Electricity Markets Authority holds it (or anyone acting on behalf of that person) to the Commissioners for Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs for the purposes of their functions relating to public interest business protection tax or any other tax.
(3) Subject to sub-paragraph (5), no duty of confidentiality or other restriction on disclosure (however imposed) prevents the disclosure of information in accordance with sub-paragraph (2).
(4) This paragraph does not limit the circumstances in which information may be disclosed under section 105(2) to (4) of the Utilities Act 2000 or under any other enactment or rule of law.
(5) Nothing in this paragraph authorises the making of a disclosure which—
(a) contravenes the data protection legislation (save that the power conferred by this paragraph is to be taken into account in determining whether a disclosure contravenes that legislation), or
(b) is prohibited by any of Parts 1 to 7 or Chapter 1 of Part 9 of the Investigatory Powers Act 2016 (save that the power conferred by this paragraph is to be taken into account when determining whether a disclosure is prohibited by those provisions).
Application of the Provisional Collection of Taxes Act 1968
39 The Provisional Collection of Taxes Act 1968 has effect as if section 1(1) of that Act (temporary statutory effect of House of Commons resolutions affecting listed taxes or customs or excise duties) contained a reference to public interest business protection tax.
Power to apply, disapply or modify provisions of relevant tax legislation
40 (1) For purposes in connection with the administration of public interest business protection tax, the Treasury may by regulations make provision about the application of relevant tax legislation to public interest business protection tax (including provision disapplying or modifying such legislation or applying legislation that would not otherwise apply).
(2) Relevant tax legislation means any provision made by or under—
(a) the Taxes Acts, or
(b) Part 3 of this Schedule.
Regulations
41 (1) A power to make regulations under this Schedule includes power to make—
(a) consequential, supplementary, incidental, transitional or saving provision;
(b) provision having retrospective effect.
(2) Regulations under this Schedule are to be made by statutory instrument.
(3) Sub-paragraph (4) applies to—
(a) regulations under paragraph 2,
(b) regulations under this Schedule that have the effect of limiting the application of, reducing or removing any existing relief or exemption from tax, or
(c) regulations under this Schedule which have retrospective effect, other than regulations having retrospective effect which provide for a new or increased relief or a new exemption.
(4) A statutory instrument containing (whether alone or with other provision) regulations to which this sub-paragraph applies may not be made unless a draft of the instrument has been laid before and approved by a resolution of the House of Commons.
(5) Any other statutory instrument containing regulations under this Schedule is subject to annulment in pursuance of a resolution of the House of Commons.
Interpretation of Schedule
42 (1) In this Schedule—
“adjusted value” is to be construed in accordance with paragraph 3;
“asset” is to be construed in accordance with paragraph 1(10);
“company” means a body corporate;
“the data protection legislation” has the same meaning as in the Data Protection Act 2018 (see section 3 of that Act);
“discovery assessment” is to be construed in accordance with paragraph 18(1);
“disposal” is to be construed in accordance with paragraph 1(10);
“disqualifying period” is to be construed in accordance with paragraph 4(4);
“disqualifying steps” is to be construed in accordance with paragraph 1;
“fair value”, in relation to an asset held by a person (“P”), means the amount which, at the time as at which the value is to be determined, is the amount which P would obtain from an independent person dealing at arm’s length for—
(a) in the case of an asset comprising rights and liabilities, the transfer of P’s rights under the asset and the release of all P’s liabilities under it, or
(b) in any other case, the transfer of the asset;
“principal taxpayer” is to be construed in accordance with (as the case may require) paragraph 4(1), 5(1) or 5(2);
“public interest business” is to be construed in accordance with paragraph 2(1);
“qualifying purpose” is to be construed in accordance with paragraph 1;
“special measures” is to be construed in accordance with paragraph 2(3);
“tax” (except where the context otherwise requires) means public interest business protection tax;
“the Taxes Acts” has the meaning given by section 118(1) of TMA 1970;
“the tribunal” means the First-tier Tribunal or, where determined by or under Tribunal Procedure Rules, the Upper Tribunal.
(2) For the purposes of this Schedule—
(a) whether a person is connected with another person is to be determined in accordance with section 1122 of CTA 2010, and
(b) whether a person controls a company is to be determined in accordance with section 1124(2) of that Act.
(3) Subsections (5) to (7) of section 118 of TMA 1970 (meaning of references to bringing about loss of tax or situation carelessly or deliberately) apply for the purposes of this Schedule as they apply for the purposes of that Act.
(4) The Treasury may by regulations make further provision about the meaning and application of “fair value” in cases specified in the regulations.
Commencement and expiry
43 (1) This Schedule has effect in relation to the taking of disqualifying steps (whenever taken) in disqualifying circumstances where the public interest business in question becomes subject to special measures—
(a) on or after 28 January 2022, and
(b) before 28 January 2023.
(2) The Treasury may, for the date for the time being specified in sub-paragraph (1)(b), by regulations substitute such later date before 29 January 2025 as may be specified in the regulations.
(3) The power in sub-paragraph (2)—
(a) may be exercised on more than one occasion;
(b) may not be exercised on or after the date for the time being specified in sub-paragraph (1)(b).”—(Lucy Frazer.)
This new schedule provides for a new tax imposed by reference to the value of an asset that was held by a person for the benefit of a public interest business that enters special measures but was instead used in a way that materially contributed to it entering special measures, or to a significant increase of the costs of that business.
Brought up, and added to the Bill.

Schedule 1 - Abolition of basis periods

Amendments made: 14, in schedule 1,page91,line38, leave out “(see Step 1)” and insert “(“the transition component”)”.
This amendment and Amendments 15 to 17 ensure that a tax liability arising from the transitional arrangements for the coming into force of Schedule 1 may be reduced at Step 6 of the calculation in section 23 of the Income Tax Act 2007.
Amendment 15, in schedule 1,page91,line39, leave out “that” and insert “the transition”.
See the explanatory statement for Amendment 14.
Amendment 16, in schedule 1,page91,line39, leave out from “2” to end of line 42 and insert “,
(c) the amount of the transition component left after Step 2 were left out of the calculation of net income (and subsequent Steps), and
(b) for the purposes of Steps 5 to 7, the amount (if any) given by sub-paragraph (3) were treated as an amount of tax calculated at Step 4.”
See the explanatory statement for Amendment 14.
Amendment 17,in schedule 1, page92,line1, leave out sub-paragraph (3) and insert—
“(3) The amount given by this sub-paragraph is the difference between—
(a) the total amount of tax that would be calculated at Step 5 if Steps 1 to 4 were applied in accordance with sub-paragraph (2)(a) to (c) (ignoring sub-paragraph (2)(d)), and
(b) the total amount of tax that would be calculated at Step 5 if Steps 1 to 4 were applied in accordance with sub-paragraph (2)(a) and (b) (ignoring sub-paragraph (2)(c) and (d)).”—(Lucy Frazer.)
See the explanatory statement for Amendment 14.

Schedule 2 - Qualifying asset holding companies

Amendments made: 18, in schedule 2,page95,line45, leave out “(1)(b)(i)” and insert “(1)(b)(ii)”
This amendment corrects a cross-referencing error.
Amendment 19, in schedule 2,page100,line13, after “connected persons” insert
“(within the meaning of section 1122 of CTA 2010 (“connected” persons))”.
This amendment clarifies what is meant by a person being connected to another.
Amendment 20, in schedule 2,page100,line18, leave out paragraphs (i) and (ii) and insert—
(i) any person who would be regarded as a participator (for the purposes of that Part) only as a result of being a creditor of the fund in respect of a normal commercial loan (within the meaning it has in paragraph 3) is not to be regarded as a participator,
(ii) any interest a participator has as a creditor of the fund in respect of a normal commercial loan is not to be regarded as an interest of that participator,
(iii) as if paragraph (a) of section 450(3) of that Act were omitted,
(iv) paragraphs 5(5) and 6(5) and (6) of this Schedule apply for the purposes of determining the rights of participators in the fund as they apply for the purposes of determining relevant interests in a QAHC, and”
This amendment provides that the provision of a commercial loan to a fund will not constitute an interest in it for the purposes of determining whether a fund is close and provides for the application of certain rules of this Schedule in making that determination.
Amendment 21, schedule 2,page100,line31, leave out sub-paragraph (iii)
This amendment is consequential on Amendment 20.
Amendment 22,page100,line34, at end insert—
“(5A) In making a determination under sub-paragraph (5)(b), neither a manager of a fund nor a general partner in a limited partnership that is a collective investment scheme is to be regarded as having control of that fund or scheme unless that manager or partner would be treated as having control of it as result of satisfying a condition in section 450(3)(b) to (d) of CTA 2010 (whether alone or with other persons).”
This amendment ensures that managers and general partners of certain types of funds will only be regarded as having control of a fund as a result of their economic interest in it or as a result of their voting power.
Amendment 23, in schedule 2,page100,line38, leave out from “the fund” to end of line 39
This amendment removes an over-elaboration of the concept of voting power (in a fund).
Amendment 24, in schedule 2,page101,line3, leave out “6(6)” and insert “6(7)”
This amendment corrects a cross-referencing error.
Amendment 25,in schedule 2, page101,line14, after “(5)(a)(i)” insert
“and (ii) (as they apply by virtue of sub-paragraph (5)(b))”.
This amendment is consequential on Amendment 20.
Amendment 26,in schedule 2, page101,line17, at end insert—
“manager”, in relation to a fund, means—
(a) any person who is the manager of the property that is the subject of or held by the fund, or
(b) any other person who has, or is expected to have, day-to-day control of that property.”
This amendment defines “manager” for the purposes of Amendment 22 and paragraph 9(3) of Schedule 2.
Amendment 27,in schedule 2, page101,line46, after “connected” insert
“(within the meaning of section 1122 of CTA 2010 (“connected” persons))”.
This amendment clarifies what is meant by a person being connected to another.
Amendment 28, in schedule 2,page101,line47, after “controlled” insert
“(within the meaning of section 450 of that Act)”.
This amendment clarifies what is meant by a person having control of another.
Amendment 29,in schedule 2, page115,line6, leave out paragraph (d)
This amendment removes provision disapplying provision about intangible fixed assets that is otiose, given intangible fixed assets will not be within the ring fence business of a QAHC.
Amendment 30,in schedule 2, page120,line27, leave out “regardless” and insert “security”.—(Lucy Frazer.)
This amendment corrects an error.

Schedule 5 - Insurance contracts: change in accounting standards

Amendments made: 31,in schedule 5, page137,line16, leave out “the words in brackets” and insert—
“(adjusted, where relevant, in accordance with step 2)”.
This amendment clarifies which words are to be omitted from Step 4 in section 76 Finance Act 2012.
Amendment 32,in schedule 5, page137,line18, after “etc)” insert—
“(i) in subsection (2), in paragraph (a) omit “(but see subsection (3))”;”
This amendment omits a reference in section 77(2) Finance Act 2012 to section 77(3), which is also being omitted.
Amendment 33,in schedule 5, page137,line34, leave out paragraph (h) and insert—
“(h) in section 128 (relief for transferee in respect of transferor’s BLAGAB expenses)—
(i) in the heading, after “transferor’s” insert “excess”;
(ii) omit subsections (2) to (4);”—(Lucy Frazer.)
This amendment ensures that the provisions of section 128 Finance Act 2012 relevant to the transfer of excess basic life assurance and general annuity business expenses in the context of a transfer under Part VII of the Financial Services and Markets Act 2000 are retained.
Third Reading.

Lucy Frazer: I beg to move, That the Bill be now read the Third time.
In the autumn Budget, the Chancellor set out a vision to build a stronger economy that would allow this country to bounce back from the pandemic. This Finance Bill takes forward measures that will help to turn that vision into reality and drive growth for our country long into the future. Its measures will support business across the UK, including our banking, creative and shipping sectors. In addition, the Bill will protect businesses and the public by clamping down on tax evasion and economic crime, improving trust and building a fairer UK economy.
I turn first to the measures in the Bill designed to safeguard and strengthen industry and the wider economy. To help businesses invest and grow, we are extending the annual investment allowance at its highest-ever level of £1 million until 31 March 2023. The £1 million AIA level means that more than 99% of businesses will have their plant and machinery expenditure covered.
We are also extending the support offered to the creative industries by providing additional tax reliefs to theatres, orchestras, museums and galleries as the sector recovers. These rates of higher relief will provide a further incentive for new productions, exhibitions and concerts up to April 2024.
Finally, reforms to the UK tonnage tax regime will encourage more firms to base their headquarters in the UK to use our world-leading maritime services industry and to fly the flag of the UK. This will bring jobs and investment throughout the country, and especially to our coastal communities.
I now turn to how the Bill will deliver stronger public finances. The Bill sets the rate of the bank surcharge so that the combined rate on banks’ profits will increase to 28% from April 2023. It also increases the surcharge allowance to £100 million. These changes will ensure that the banks continue to make a fair contribution while encouraging growth and competition for smaller groups within the UK banking market.
The 1.25% increase on dividend income rates from 6 April 2022 will help fund the health and social care settlement, ensuring that contributions are made based on employed and self-employed earnings. The Government are also introducing the new 4% residential developer tax on the most profitable developers. This will raise at  least £2 billion over the next decade to help pay for the removal of unsafe cladding, providing reassurance to home owners and boosting confidence in the UK housing market.
At the heart of this Finance Bill is the desire to safeguard taxpayers’ interests and deal with those who avoid paying their fair share. The economic crime levy will help deliver the Government’s objectives to combat economic crime and will raise an expected £100 million per year to fund anti-laundering measures. The levy is calculated by UK revenue and provides the fairest and simplest method for the anti-money laundering regulated sector to contribute further. That will cement the UK’s reputation as a secure country in which to conduct business and solidifies the Government’s ambition to permanently tackle economic crime.
As I mentioned earlier, the Bill’s measures will clamp down on tax avoidance and evasion. It will give HMRC more powers to tackle promoters of tax avoidance schemes by levying penalties on UK entities that enable them. The measures are accompanied by an increase in the duty charge on tobacco products by 2% and a rise in the minimum excise tax to 3% above RPI inflation, alongside new measures to tackle duty evasion. That will help reduce the long-term burden on the NHS and improve public health generally.
By targeting businesses that manipulate electronic records to evade tax, the Bill reinforces the Government’s efforts to tackle unscrupulous businesses that carry out electronic sales suppression. The measures are essential to Britain’s reputation as a global hub for businesses and as a secure and transparent place in which to conduct business.
I thank hon. and right hon. Members for their helpful and insightful contributions to the debates during the Bill’s passage.
To conclude, this Finance Bill supports our efforts to build a stronger economy. It tackles tax evasion and avoidance, and, ultimately, its measures will create a brighter and simpler future for industry, the economy and the UK as a whole. For those reasons, I commend it to the House.

James Murray: When we first debated this Finance Bill on Second Reading in November last year, it was clear to us that it offered nothing to help people struggling with the rising costs of living and facing tax rises this April. Since that time, pressures on people across this country have only become more intense, and the need for the Government to act has only become more urgent.
Inflation is now at its highest rate in decades and energy bills are set to soar in April, just as the Chancellor is set to hike national insurance on working people. That tax rise, when combined with energy price rises and other tax hikes, will leave families on average £1,200 worse off a year. Yet there is nothing in the Bill to help with the cost of living. There is, however, a tax cut for banks in the Bill, despite bankers being widely expected to receive large bonuses this year, as investment banks’ profits have soared off the back of a wave of takeovers and mergers caused by the pandemic. It shows just how out of touch this Chancellor is. At the weekend, he decided to dig in over his tax rise for working people. By the middle of the week, he is using the Bill to cut taxes for banks by £1 billion a year.
In earlier debates on the Bill, we were critical of the Government for not doing enough to combat economic crime. We welcome the principle of a levy, but we are left wondering why on earth legislation that would set up a register of overseas owners of UK property—a critical tool to tackle money laundering—has been left to gather dust. On Second Reading, we challenged the Government over their failure to establish such a register. Our country has earned the shocking reputation as the world’s laundromat for illicit finance. A new public register would bring desperately needed transparency to the overseas ownership of UK properly, and would help to stop it being used for money laundering.
Since that time, the need to bring transparency to the question of who owns high-end property in the UK has only become more urgent. Economic sanctions against Russia will never have the effect that they should as long as our Government let those who are linked to Putin and his regime hide their wealth in the mansions of Knightsbridge and Belgravia.
We also asked what the Bill does for another type of property: buildings with unsafe cladding that need to be remediated. We questioned Ministers on how they had arrived at their decision on the level of the residential property developer tax when so much more was needed to protect leaseholders from bearing the cost. Since we first raised our concerns about the detail of that tax, the Government have realised that they were wrong to make leaseholders in buildings of between 11 metres and 18 metres take out forced loans to cover the cost of cladding remediation in their buildings. The Housing Secretary now says that he is planning to convince developers to hand over £4 billion voluntarily. If he fails, we want to know how leaseholders and those in need of affordable homes will be protected. Despite our questioning earlier today, Treasury Ministers have been unable to offer people the reassurance they need.
Finally, there is no plan for growth in the Bill. We are stuck in a low-growth, high-tax cycle. With strong growth, we would have the chance to create new jobs, with better wages and conditions, in every part of this country. With low growth, it gets ever harder to meet the challenges we face, and the Tories have no choice other than to put up taxes.
The shadow Chancellor, my hon. Friend the Member for Leeds West (Rachel Reeves), has set out Labour’s plan for growth: investing in skills, research and development, and the industries of the new green economy; choosing to buy, make and sell more in Britain; and creating jobs in every part of the country. We would build a stronger economy with our plan to give working people the respect they are due, to give people real economic security, and to ensure prosperity in every part of Britain. That is the approach that our country needs in order to grow and meet the challenges of the future.
Right now, people across the country need the Government to protect them from the cost of living crisis and protect our country from dirty money from Russia. All we have instead is a Prime Minister who does everything he can to protect himself. We opposed the Bill on Second Reading and, as our reasons for doing so have only grown stronger, we will vote against it tonight.

Alison Thewliss: I thank the Government and the official Opposition Front-Bench teams for the way in which proceedings on the Bill have been conducted. We have all learned an awful lot about each other, and it has been a genuinely interesting process. I thank the Clerks, Chris Stanton and Kevin Maddison, for their support, without which we would definitely have struggled to put our amendments forward. I thank Clorinda Luck, one of the SNP’s senior researchers, for stepping in at short notice to cover some of the research on the Bill—I am very grateful to her for that work.
Although some of the measures in the Bill are welcome, we in the SNP have to oppose it because it is such a missed opportunity to do so much more about economic crime and the scourge of money laundering and kleptocracy coming to the shores of these islands. There is a lack of action to tackle the misuse of Scottish limited partnerships and shell companies, and to tackle the money flowing through the very city we are standing in. The Bill is also a missed opportunity to do more on net zero in particular. Given last year’s COP, there should have been a great deal more to focus minds and move to a greener and fairer economy.
The Bill is indicative of a Government who are removed from the problems that ordinary people face and who are without solutions to the challenges that our constituents are seeing right now: the challenges of inequality, the scars of 10 years of austerity, the cost of living crisis, which is making life so very difficult for so many people right now, soaring inflation and energy prices that are spiralling out of control.
Contrast that with the opportunity presented by Kate Forbes in the Scottish Parliament last week. With the limited powers that we have over the Scottish Budget, that Budget offers great hope to the people of Scotland. We look enviously at the powers that we could have as a full, independent, normal nation with the full levers to make the real inroads into inequality, to make life fairer, better and more just for the people of Scotland. So we cannot support this Budget and we wish that very soon we will have that full range of powers to make things better for our own citizens.
Question put, That the Bill be read the Third time.

The House divided: Ayes 302, Noes 226.
Question accordingly agreed to.
Bill read the Third time and passed.

Business without Debate

Delegated Legislation

Motion made, and Question put forthwith (Standing Order No. 118(6)),

Rating and Valuation

That the draft Non-Domestic Rating (Levy and Safety Net) (Amendment) Regulations 2022, which were laid before this House on 10 January, be approved.—(Scott Mann.)
Question agreed to.

Army Reserve

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—(Scott Mann.)

Richard Bacon: It is a great pleasure to have this Adjournment debate on the Army Reserve. I asked for this because I am concerned that a yawning gap is opening up between the laudable ambitions of Ministers in the Ministry of Defence and what is actually proposed for the reserve. Ironically, this debate takes place at a time when large numbers of reservists, on both sides, are central to the darkening military picture in Ukraine.
When I served in the Territorial Army Intelligence Corps in the 1980s, there was not necessarily an expectation of being deployed, because it would have meant that the third world war had started, but the situation has now been quite different for many years. Those joining the reserves now expect to be deployed, and for many reservists it is one of the attractions of joining. Indeed, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Defence has consistently made it clear that he sees the reserves as an important element of cost-effective armed forces. At the peak, they provided 23% of our forces in Iraq and 13% in Afghanistan. More recently, they have performed further crucial roles in the covid emergency and in dealing with cyber-threats.
Page 19 of the Ministry of Defence document “Future Soldier Guide”, in a section headed “Army Reserve Transformation”, states:
“Our nation’s Reservists will play a vital and pivotal role in delivering Future Soldier. We require a more capable, more ready and more usable Army Reserve, which is assured to deliver against mandated tasks across the UK or overseas. Every part of the Army Reserve will have a clear warfighting role and stand ready to fight as part of the Whole Force in time of war.”

Adam Holloway: On that point, as a former infantry officer, it strikes me that, if we remove support weapons, we obviously have a less capable unit, but we also lose the interest and the attraction to retain troops.

Richard Bacon: My hon. Friend makes a good point. Part of the way in which the reserves used to be recruited made clear the importance of formed bodies. The building of comradeship and interest and the use of civilian skills in the reserve forces was an important part of attracting people. I will say more about that because we do not want to lose them.
The MOD document continues:
“Over the coming years the Army Reserve will increasingly take responsibility for Homeland Protect and Resilience operations, supported by the regular component.”
That should increase focus and clarity and it should be very exciting. Unfortunately, serious issues on structure and resourcing threaten to blow away those good intentions. My first concern is that, at a time when the Regular Army is being reduced—again—it seems extraordinary that we are cutting the Army Reserve, too. Could the Minister confirm that the MOD plans to cut the establishment of the Army Reserve from 30,100 trained, with a further 3,000 on phase 1 training, to 27,100 trained, with a further 3,000 on phase 1 training? That is a cut of about 10%.

Jim Shannon: First, I congratulate the hon. Member on bringing the debate forward. I concur and entirely support the figures to which he refers, because the figures that I have from within Northern Ireland indicate that the position is similar for us in Northern Ireland. I have been made aware of the proposed restructuring of our Army Reserve, medical units and infantry in Northern Ireland, leading to a 10% reduction in numbers. I declare an interest as a former reservist and part-time soldier for 14 and a half years.
Northern Ireland has a commitment to the reserves, an ability to recruit and a willingness to deploy. Indeed, Northern Ireland has contributed comparatively more to operations overseas than any other region. The reduction that the hon. Gentleman refers to is ludicrous. I fully understand the need to restructure and to meet up-to-date operational needs, but why throw away the willing volunteers that we have in Northern Ireland? I cannot understand where we are going.

Richard Bacon: I very much agree. The hon. Gentleman made the point that Northern Ireland has contributed disproportionately to the reserves. I should declare that when I did my final passing out camp in the intelligence corps, we shared our barracks with the Royal Irish Rangers; indeed, I passed out with a Royal Irish Rangers pipe band. I must say to anyone who has not experienced it that they should not knock it until they have tried it. There is nothing quite like marching in Army formation with an Irish pipe band. As he said, the Northern Irish have contributed hugely to the reserves and we are all in this House grateful to them for what they do.
Much worse than the actual cut in numbers is the way in which the cut is proposed, including the erosion of the already fragile structure of all our combat units, instead of simply closing a few. The essence of effective reserves, both for use in small operations and to form a basis for regenerating a larger army, is putting together a body of officers and soldiers who train, study and socialise together, building links of comradeship that can stand the test of combat.
Britain did that successfully in the two world wars and more recently in Iraq and in the early part of Operation Herrick in Afghanistan, where formed companies of infantry, and sub-units from other elements, were successfully deployed. Unfortunately, in the latter stages of Operation Herrick, that approach was torn up and reserve units were exclusively used to backfill regular ones—“augmentation”, as the Army calls it. That offered no command roles for junior reserve officers, just supporting posts.
The consequences were dire. The “Reserves in the Future Force 2020” report uncovered that the junior officer base of the Army had disintegrated, and applications for reserve Sandhurst courses collapsed. Putting that right and moving back towards formed bodies was at the heart of the rebuilding programme of the past decade. Indeed, in the past two years, we have seen a yeomanry squadron rotate successfully into Operation Cabrit in eastern Europe and two reserve infantry battalions, 6 and 7 Rifles, provide the framework for Operation Tosca in Cyprus.
That is why the widely discussed proposals for the cuts in the Army Reserve are so devastating. Instead of simply disbanding a few reserve units—perhaps from  an area such as logistics where there is a successful record of using armed civilian contractors in Iraq and Afghanistan—I understand that the plan is to devastate every infantry battalion by reducing the manning in three company battalions to just 340 and in four company battalions to 430. Each company will consist of just two rifle platoons and a single section of support weapons, instead of a support platoon.
Besides the obvious point that this seems a very odd time to reduce our reserves of anti-tank weapons and mortars, that will leave each company much smaller and with no in-house staff for the residual support element. Given that nobody gets a full turnout, even when manning recovers from the devastation of covid, that would leave a sub-unit structure without the critical mass for company-level training. At battalion level, it will become impossible to generate a formed company for an extended deployment, as the proportion of even a well-recruited unit who can take many months off work in peacetime is inevitably limited.
That brings me to the state of the reserves recruiting programme. During covid, the collapse in activity was damaging to units, much of it, I suspect, concealed in the statistics by a failure to discharge non-attenders. So the decision largely to turn off the reserve pipeline for many months was ill judged, but, since it restarted last year, astonishingly, the marketing has been done without consultation or even co-ordination with reserve units, or with the reserve forces cadets associations with their local footprint and knowledge. The Minister will know that that has not produced the surge that the Army Reserve hoped for, and badly needs, after the setbacks of covid. I await the figures for the most recent quarter with some trepidation.
There is now a threat to the progress that has been made on reserve officer courses at Royal Military Academy Sandhurst. Three years ago, the post of deputy commandant reserves, which had played such a big part in the recovery of reserve officers, was abolished. Now, the decision has just been taken to sideline the reserve colonel at Sandhurst, to whom the various university officer training corps reported. The reserves depend on the OTCs for the bulk of their officer supply and much of their training, and almost all OTCs are commanded by regular officers. Now they will answer to a regular officer, too. So the senior reserve voice has been frozen out of that critical area for the health and regeneration of the Army Reserve. OTCs may become little more than recruiting organisations for the Regular Army.
Those concerns about manning are reinforced by a number of other emerging trends. At a time when covid and the recruiting pause have left such gaps, is it really a good time to suggest that, where units can recruit above strength and their neighbours cannot, they will be forbidden to do so? That would punish those who are successful, and make it a certainty that we will never recruit up to our new, further reduced target.
In a separate “Future Soldier” document, the reserve component narrative states at paragraph 3, line 4:
“An assured and capable Reserve will require a new approach to training, basing and force generation that sets the Army Reserve up for success. Reservists may not need to give more of their time; but making much better use of their time will be essential.”
That is exactly right, but let us look at the detail.
To take training first, many experienced reservists would say that the biggest waste of their time is the approach of many of the arms schools, which insist that reservists are trained at the same slow speed as regulars, despite reservists having a higher educational minimum standard and, crucially, needing to make progress in the short periods they can spare from civilian jobs. Some forward-leaning institutions, such as Chatham and Larkhill, have modularised, pushing out much of their courses to units and making use of distance learning. Others, such as Bovington and Leconfield, continue to insist on courses being almost all delivered on site and frequently at a very slow pace—a considerable problem for reservists whose day jobs and homes are far away.
What is being done to tackle those institutions that simply do not understand that reserves need to be prepared in a way that fits around their civilian work patterns?
Turning to basing, there are plans that elements of the reserve estate will be closed and that units will be grouped in larger, better centres. Although, in principle, this should improve some dire accommodation, we need to be cautious. Most journeys to training take place in the rush hour, so peak traffic journey times are critical in assessing the expectation that recruits with demanding day jobs will be willing to travel after a hard day’s work. This is particularly seen in threats to delete successful sub-units. Unless the alternative location is close, it will simply drive people away, further reducing manning.

Mark Francois: I declare an interest of sorts, as a former TA infantry officer during the cold war. On a positive note, I am delighted to report that my godson Alexander Blackwell, who I saw today, recently graduated from Sandhurst as a second lieutenant in the Army Reserve.
The Territorial Army did great service in both the first and second world wars. Given that we now have 125,000 Russian troops ringing Ukraine, does my hon. Friend agree that we should never, under any circumstances, take our reserves for granted? Time and again, they have been literally the last line of defence.

Richard Bacon: My right hon. Friend is exactly right, and I fear that, at times, we have acted as if we seem to be taking them for granted, which we absolutely must not do.
One of the best ways of making the slender resources available to the reserve estate go further would be reducing bureaucracy in the Defence Infrastructure Organisation so that the reserve forces and cadets associations can crack on with using their local knowledge and the business acumen of their volunteers, as they used to do so successfully. On that subject, when will the Ministry of Defence publish the 2021 report of the RFCA external scrutiny team?
I am sure the Minister will be familiar with section 47 of the Defence Reform Act 2014:
“On receiving a report…the Secretary of State must lay a copy of it before Parliament.”
Heaven forfend that the Secretary of State would inadvertently break the law, but I understand he has had a copy of this report since last July.
On the question of force generation, right across the English-speaking world, from the National Guard with its presence in every American population centre to the Australian army reserve, reserve forces are proud of  their local ties and footprint. Earlier this decade, changes that paired reserve battalions with regular battalions wisely built on that here.
Earlier I stressed the importance of keeping the emphasis on formed bodies, which train, socialise and build comradeship to fight together. It is a shame that the Army’s reserve narrative lists, for conditions short of war, supply individuals to regular units ahead of using formed bodies. That points towards the slippery slope that we went down in the dying days of Operation Herrick, with the destruction of the reserve officer corps.
Returning once more to the reserve component narrative of “Future Soldier”:
“While Army Reserve will play an increased role, the management of the Army Reserve will change to ensure that employers are not adversely affected.”
The greatest barrier to employer support is last-minute changes in call-out plans and arrangements that wreck the plans that employers have generously made to allow their employees to engage in military service. That happened frequently in Operation Rescript at the peak of the covid crisis and continues to happen on other operations. When will steps be taken to ensure that such last-minute changes are identified and recorded, and to ensure that the officers concerned are called to account?
To summarise, I welcome much of the Army’s vision for the reserve, but I believe there is a real danger that the cuts to numbers and resources, and the structures emerging, will undermine them.

Adam Holloway: Given the long list of cuts, does my hon. Friend agree that the time has come to restore a separate vote for the reserves so that Parliament can know where the money is going?

Richard Bacon: That is a very good idea. Having served on the Public Accounts Committee for 16 years, I always like things that make it clearer where the money is going.

Mark Francois: As I now have the privilege of serving on the current Public Accounts Committee, I entirely endorse the sensible suggestion of my hon. Friend the Member for Gravesham (Adam Holloway).

Richard Bacon: I hope the Minister is listening, because my right hon. Friend is a man not lightly to be trifled with. Indeed, the hon. Member for Hackney South and Shoreditch (Dame Meg Hillier), the Chair of that Committee—with whom I co-operate extensively, as I chair the Public Accounts Commission, which provides the budget for the National Audit Office—is a lady not to be trifled with. I hope that the Minister and the Ministry of Defence will take that seriously, otherwise I think they may find that there are questions on it at future PAC hearings.
At a time when regular manpower is being cut, the Army Reserve is rightly being asked to do a great deal more, and it needs the structures, systems and resources that will allow it to deliver.

Leo Docherty: I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for South Norfolk (Mr Bacon) for his thoughtful and  constructive speech, and it is my great pleasure to respond to it. I am also very pleased to have heard the contributions of my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Gravesham (Adam Holloway) and my right hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Rayleigh and Wickford (Mr Francois), and I pay tribute to their own military service.
Let me establish the context of the debate before answering some of my hon. Friend’s questions. I share his sense of the terrific value of our reserve forces. He outlined correctly their central role in our national security: we have already heard how critical that role has been in the operations in, for instance, Afghanistan and Iraq, and, of course, we have also seen their recent response to the covid pandemic in Operation Rescript. All Members will have seen in their own constituencies the terrific work carried out by both regular and reserve forces in assisting the national health service. In May 2020, a total of 2,300 reservists were in service in Operation Rescript, and we should also acknowledge their current work in delivering support to the Scottish Government in driving ambulances and assisting the NHS in Scotland. We should pay tribute to how they support our national resilience on health, day in and day out.
My right hon. Friend the Member for Rayleigh and Wickford rightly drew attention to the international context. Given the remarkable situation on the Ukraine border, we should acknowledge the central importance of the reserves in our defence capability: we see their remarkable range of expertise and professionalism as something that we can readily call upon, and something that is intrinsically valuable. It is part of our contribution to NATO, and it is something that we rightly appreciate. I hope that, despite the criticisms raised, my hon. Friend feels—this is at the heart of our doctrine outlined in Future Soldier, to which he alluded, and at the heart of the integrated review—that our Army Reserve retains a central role in our defence proposition.
Let me now turn to some of my hon. Friend’s specific challenges. The 27,100 figure that he quoted relates only to the Army; it does not include 1,500 reservists in other parts of Defence, and the 300 who are undergoing training. If we look at the numbers in the round, we see that the story is quite positive. Those figures do not illustrate a depreciation in the strength of the Army Reserve, which is currently 26,230. Moreover, restructuring will give it the opportunity to shape itself correctly to enable us to deliver the most effective outcome. This is not just about having a very large establishment; it is about having a very high level—or a higher level—of availability and deployability, which the Future Soldier programme will seek to deliver.

Jim Shannon: The Minister has responded very positively to questions that I have asked in the House about recruitment in Northern Ireland, but, if he does not mind, I will ask him a direct question now. Figures that I have received about the proposed restructuring of the Army reserve medical units in Northern Ireland show a 10% reduction. Can the Minister confirm that that will not be the case?

Leo Docherty: I do not know the answer on that specific unit in Northern Ireland, but I will take that away and write to the hon. Gentleman.
Returning to the point about deployability, what we are seeking to achieve is a more potent and deployable reserve that can help us to respond to the threats we face. My hon. Friend the Member for South Norfolk referred repeatedly to Future Soldier. Although that reduces the structure of a large proportion of Army Reserve units, it does not do so to a size that impacts the overall strength of the Army Reserve. Through the work of the integrated review, we have sought to match the force to the threats and address the historical imbalance in the structure of the Army Reserve by standardising sub-unit numbers, which brings greater coherence. Our units now have a common structure based on whether they have three or four sub-units. By maintaining all our combat units, we have maintained the best possible geographical spread to assist with the increased role in homeland resilience.
The Future Soldier reserve structure places a warfighting demand on combat units for companies, squadrons, platoons and troops to augment regular units. My hon. Friend’s central proposition was that augmentation is a bad thing, but in terms of agility and providing best impact, my judgment, through operational experience in Iraq and Afghanistan, is that a very powerful operational outcome was delivered by that system of augmentation, which, on balance, I think is a good thing.

Richard Bacon: On that point, the concern is that if there are no genuine command roles for junior reserve officers, the Minister will devastate the future recruitment for junior officers. They will increasingly understand that they will not have that opportunity if augmentation is all there is. I am not saying that augmentation is always a bad thing, but if the story gets abroad that it is the only thing and that junior reserve officers will not have command roles, we will not have junior reserve officers.
On the numbers, I would like to question the Minister a little further. He mentioned the 27,100 figure and then said there would be 1,500 in addition, taking it up to 28,600, and a further 300 taking it to 28,900. That is still significantly lower than the current establishment, which is 30,100, plus a further 3,000 on phase one training. That does sound to me like a diminution, although I thought I heard him say that it was not a diminution. Can he clarify that?

Leo Docherty: The 27,100 does not include 1,500 Army reserves who are in other tri-service units. It also does not take into account the 3,000 who are undergoing phase one training. Taken in the round, that gets us north of 31,000, which, overall, is very similar to where we are now. I therefore regard that as not a diminution of strength. It is also a case of looking at the deployability rate. We are seeking to drive up availability and deployability, which I think is currently at 60%. Let us drive that up. But I would rather have a higher rate of deployability, which is how we get a better outcome and better lethality from our reserves, than a larger establishment with lower rates of deployability. My hon. Friend will know that traditionally availability and deployability, judged by those who receive their bounty across Territorial or Army Reserve units, has been extremely low and that is something we seek to drive relentlessly upwards.

Mark Francois: Churchill called the Territorials “twice the citizen”, because after a hard day’s work they go home, eat something quickly and dash out for training. When the Minister receives submissions asking him to close Army Reserve centres—I know that, as a Minister, he instinctively understands these things—will he look very carefully before signing them off? If we make the distance unrealistic to, after a hard day’s work, get to the training centre, do the training and then get home, we will lose lots of good-quality people. Does he promise he will bear that in mind before he initials any submissions?

Leo Docherty: I do, and I am grateful for that comment. I will come back to what my hon. Friend the Member for South Norfolk was saying about that earlier. Proximity of training opportunities is crucial. It is a function of geography, and we take it seriously.
Let me return to what my hon. Friend was saying about opportunities for command for young reserve officers. Establishment laydown notwithstanding, the range of opportunity that the integrated review, the defence Command Paper and Future Soldier bring to young officers, and enlisted servicemen and women, are manifold and extremely exciting. We are entering an era in which we are seeking to be deployed on a wider and more sustained basis right across the world. The offer that we make in terms of operational experience and opportunity at every level, including sub-unit command at a junior level, is extremely exciting. That is the feedback that I get from the reserve soldiers I meet.

Jim Shannon: The Minister has been very responsive to our concerns. He has referred to deployability a couple of times. What will be the impact on deployability if there are 10% reductions in Northern Ireland? It is very important to us to have a Territorial Army—a reserve force—that can actually respond, and I think the Minister wants that. Let us air that issue of deployability for Northern Ireland.

Leo Docherty: I share the hon. Gentleman’s sincere interest in the issue. I will write to him, relaying some information about future establishment strength and current deployability judged on bounty. That will be interesting for me, and I look forward to sharing that information with him.

Adam Holloway: Does the Minister believe that the new structure, in which each infantry company has lost the critical mass for training—barely 80 men—will attract good-quality officers to improve their attendance?

Leo Docherty: I think good people will principally be encouraged to join by the prospect of serving in exciting overseas operations. Look at the opportunities that exist in Kenya, Oman and right across the middle east in a more sustained fashion. The offer that we make—“If you join, you will have the prospect of serving”—is very exciting and should not be underestimated.
My hon. Friend the Member for South Norfolk make a good point about officer training corps. Importantly, he talked about estates. I reaffirm our interest, concern and sincere belief that training needs to be proximate to the people who are enjoying those opportunities. The Minister for Defence Procurement, my hon. Friend the Member for Horsham (Jeremy Quin), takes that very  seriously when he is making judgments about the estate. My hon. Friend the Member for South Norfolk asked when we would publish the RFCA 2021 report. That will be in due course, but we note his interest sincerely. I am grateful to have answered the debate tonight.
Question put and agreed to.
7.33 pm
House adjourned.